FISC Will Not Object to Release of 2011 Court Opinion That Confirmed NSA’s Illegal Surveillance

[Hissyspit]

Source: International Business Times

FISC Will Not Object To Release of 2011 Court Opinion That Confirmed NSA’s Illegal Surveillance

By Sreeja VN | June 13 2013 1:32 AM

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, ruled Wednesday that it has no objection to the release of a 2011 opinion of the court, which found that some of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs under the FISA Amendments Act, were unconstitutional.

A 2011 FISC court ruling had concluded that some of the NSA’s surveillance programs had violated sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, a law aimed at protecting American citizens from surveillance programs targeted at foreigners.

The nation’s most secretive court, as it has been called in the media, said that the 86-page classified opinion can be made public if a district court orders it.

- snip -

The ruling is significant as the NSA’s PRISM program, which has sparked public outrage over Internet users’ privacy rights, is based on the same sections that the FISC found was circumvented by the security agency.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023

[westerebus]

1. Are you telling me the court is ________________ ?

[dkf]

2. I bet Snowden gave it to Greenwald already.

No point in trying to hide it.

[Catherina]

9. +1! n/t

[marmar]

3. The plot thickens.

nt

[Ms. Toad]

4. Hmmm....

Bet we hear lots of crickets.

Wonder how this gets explained away by folks who think the clandestine metadata gathering and analysis is wonderful and constitutional.

[cstanleytech]

6. You are putting the cart before the horse there Ms. Toad as the article did not

say it was the gathering of the metadata that the court found to be unconstitutional and it could have been a ruling regarding the actions the NSA took during the Bush administration when they got in the habit of wiretapping without getting warrants as was required by law.

[brett_jv]

7. What stanley said ...

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (2)

There's no indication in the article that the collection of meta-data specifically was unconstitutional.

Nobody (I don't think) on DU thinks it's 'wonderful'. I'd imagine nearly all of us hope the matter is decided in favor of 'our privacy', whenever the matter is adjudicated.

However, there's a small contingent of us here are willing to point out the simple fact that just because 'we think it's unconstitutional (meaning a bunch of us on DU)' ... that doesn't necessarily make it so.

The only thing that is guaranteed protected under the 4th is our 'homes, property, papers, and effects'. ANYTHING that is NOT one of those things ... has to be decided by the courts whether it's 'covered' under the 4th.

Matter of fact, for 40 years (between Olmstead in the 20's and Katz in the 60's, a Supreme Court decision stood that said it was perfectly legal for the cops to tap your phone and listen to your calls without a warrant. The decision specifically said 'this isn't covered under the 4th Amendment'.

Thankfully, as we all know, that nonsense was overturned ... however, there's been all manner of 'warrantless surveillance' that's been deemed to be 'legal' under the 4th by the Courts. For example:

Garbage cans, unless inside the 'curtilage' (sp?) of your house, may be searched w/o warrant, even when on your property
Aerial surveillance of your yard to see if you're growing pot plants
Surveillance of people in Public Places
Surveillance of all the phone numbers you dial (pen registers)
Cops can pretty much search your car for any reason they want, w/o a warrant
Cops can take your friggin DNA ... just because you've been arrested (which is freakin' BS if you ask me)

However, there's also been various new 'protections' decided upon in in recent years. For example:

Cops can't search your house on the basis of a 'drug sniffing dog' at your door indicating that there's drugs inside
Cops can't fly over houses and use thermal imagery to try to detect 'growing' operations INSIDE the house

The point is, there's literally 100's upon 100's of 'controlling' court cases with regards to what IS, and what is NOT ... covered under the 4th amendent. Damn near every conceivable scenario has been hashed out, and decided upon, in a court of law.

HOWEVER, the matter of the surveillance implied by the collection of cell-phone meta-data ... has NOT been hashed out ... yet. Therefore, asserting that it IS unconstitutional (along with the implication that 'Obama' is breaking the law and defying the Constitution) ... is not factually correct. The fact is ... IT MAY BE DECIDED TO BE (unconstitutional), and that's all we really know at this point.

Just because some of us are willing to point out the very obvious and demonstrable facts concerning how our legal system operates around the subject of 4th amendment protections does NOT make us 'bad guys'.

In fact, I've been told that I should have my citizenship stripped, and be frogmarched to the border, and exiled ... along with being called a 'fool', a 'moron' and assorted other invectives for merely pointing out the (exceedingly) obvious.

It's frankly pretty friggin' out of hand around here lately w/regards to this issue.

[Uncle Joe]

8. "Papers" are communications and records,

so why wouldn't it apply?

The only thing that is guaranteed protected under the 4th is our 'homes, property, papers, and effects'. ANYTHING that is NOT one of those things ... has to be decided by the courts whether it's 'covered' under the 4th.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Whether the current supreme court ultimately finds it unconstitutional,

It is not something we should be engaging in - and something President Obama vehemently opposed as a candidate.

So I am as concerned about the people defending the practices, as I am about an ultimate court finding. I am particularly offended by those labeling racist many of us who have consistently - for decades in some instances - opposed this kind of activity, or who assert that Congress is to blame for permitting the activity, rather than expecting a president who campaigned on a promise to end it actually moving in the direction of ending - not expanding it.

Constitutionality is a very minor part of this discussion, not the be-all, end all. From the broader perspective, many of us oppose the practice - and are being told we are racist for opposing the practice, not for believing it to be unconstitutional. So at least that group of people, who are very vocal, believe it is wonderful.

[caseymoz]

12. Effects?

"Effects" is pretty damn broad. In the Internet Age, where all your important papers are backed up, it's totally unacceptable if "effects" doesn't protect you from warrantless searches to some degree. Completely and totally unacceptable. And the government had better wake up to this, because this issue only going to continue to grow till it does. It doesn't take long to see that the Internet Age will be a dark age for freedom if the government doesn't exercise some restraint.

And I predict sometime soon you will wake up to that, too.

Also, when society is replacing paper records with electronic records everywhere, and when even your so-called "private" medical files are kept and updated electronically, it's absolutely stupid and/or opportunistic for any branch of government to not provide the same standards to electronic records.

I won't compromise that stance, and I don't care how many legalities you cite.

[Catherina]

10. Have no fears. A way will be found n/t

[RC]

5. Maybe it has gotten to the point where they do not care whether we know what they are doing is

illegal.

What can we do about it anyway?