EFF sues the NSA Over Illegal Surveillance
eff.org
eff.org
I've always thought the EFF was driven by tin-foiled paranoia, but recent events are now showing that our worst big-brother fears that were initially inconceivable, are now from the limited info we're allowed to know, closer to reality.
The secret courts where "justice" and misinterpretations of the constitution are decided behind closed doors and suppressed, puts in-place about the most corrupt framework I can think of.
This is not the country I want to participate in, so I'm doing my bit and have just shown my support by donating to their cause: https://supporters.eff.org/donate
Somehow this surprises me. Is it just me, or have EFF always been the Good Guys?
Anyone who thought they were "driven by tin-foiled paranoia" was just naïve.
When Snowden first came out, I was skeptical that the information leaked would actually cause any real change to occur within governmental institutions. If lawsuits like this continue to pop up, we may begin to see the courts restraining the executive in a significant way.
A big problem here is that people in the executive firmly believe that these programs deter terrorism in the same way they believed that torture would provide actionable intelligence. They need to stop and re-evaluate whether other tactics may be as or more effective than blanket surveillance.
I wouldn't be surprised if they can cut a significant amount of their intelligence infrastructure because of the operational efficiency, I'd even go a step further and say that the DHS has been coaxing all of the state local law enforcement to pool all of their data centrally to the NSA -- so now all levels of law enforcement rely entirely on the NSA's data processing capabilities.
The amount of data-gathering by the local and state law enforcement agencies is massive and they likely have very little/no infrastructure to handle this data, so they'd pass it off to the federal government.
I understand that not everyone who wants to contribute is able to do so, financially. If that's you, please review the EFF's list of "Ways You Can Help EFF" (without spending a dime): https://www.eff.org/helpout
The standing issue is going to be a little challenging for Count I (1st amendment). The EFF's argument is basically that these organizations' expression has been chilled by the general knowledge that their communications are being collected. Laird v. Tatum seems like challenging precedent to overcome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_v._Tatum (Court held that the fear that the army might cause some harm in the future with information collected pursuant to surveillance was an insufficiently concrete injury to support standing).
The Due Process claim is iffy because it does not seem that any plaintiff has actually been prosecuted pursuant to a vague legal interpretation. If some poor sap got prosecuted in a case involving that legal interpretation, that would be a much better basis for a lawsuit.
I hope they make some progress with this, but I'm not optimistic because of the standing issues.
As an aside:
I personally don't think litigation is the best way to approach privacy issues. I strongly recommend watching this documentary on Prohibition: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ken_Burns_Prohibition/7019.... Carefully pay attention to the section describing the Anti-Saloon league, and specifically this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler.
When you think about it, the 18th amendment is a marvel. Prior to the 18th amendment, the federal government derived 30-40% of its revenues from liquor taxes. The beer barons had paid off plenty of political types. The nation was full of Irish and German immigrants who loved to drink. Yet, in 1919, the Anti-Saloon league and associated lobbyists got the 18th amendment passed to ban liquor. It was an incredible political maneuver.
They didn't accomplish this via litigation. They accomplished it via single-minded politics: Wayne Wheeler would lend the League's support to anyone who was in favor of Prohibition, regardless of their stances on other issues. He drew on the Protestant community, anti-Catholic sentiment, and the womens' vote (the suffrage movement in the U.S. was heavily driven by the desire of womens' groups to ban alcohol). They had a singular, clear, if ambitious, end-goal: the banning of alcohol.
If people are interested in electronic privacy, I think there is a lot to be learned from the success and methods of the Anti-Saloon league.
We're all in this together.
If you're interested in this concept, take a closer look at Wieman v. Updegraff (where the term "chilling effect" was first used), Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, a case very similar to Laird, and Meese v. Keene.
The following paper goes quite deep into the matter:
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/...
I agree, but I would add that the key difference here is that the Anti-Saloon League had a clear, concise, understandable goal. Privacy and anonymity advocates are all over the place.
They are not only all over the place, but they're often idealists who are unwilling to put aside their other political viewpoints to focus on the issue of privacy. This dooms them to political impotency and irrelevancy.
Which is why I'm so encouraged by the EFF's bringing religious organizations and gun associations on board. There are some very powerful organizations (the anti-abortion lobby, religious organizations, gun rights folks) who have a lot to lose from government surveillance, and also can be scared into action by the idea of someone like Obama snooping on their communications. I think it would be politically foolish not to capitalize on that state of affairs.
More broadly speaking "doing whatever" to get something done is never a good idea.
In some ways this approach is exactly why we now have the NSA sitting in our living rooms.
In the arena of national politics the NRA is almost entirely defensive. At the state level it varies, it had a hand in the 1987-2011 nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry laws, but that was mostly the work of locals, like the Calguns organization. And now the most fruitful arena is the Federal courts, which e.g. just forced Illinois to change from no issue to shall issue; the Second Amendment Foundation is the #1 player there.
Very simplistically, the power of the judicial branch of government is diminished by the executive branch flaunting their control. Hopefully they will want to recover some of that power by reigning in the executive branch.
However, of course, if all the branches are benefiting too much from the military-industrial complex, then the system could easily fall apart.
But I would add one thing, and that is that court decisions can be influenced by public opinion. And if public opinion turns significantly against the NSA by the time this is up before the 9th Circuit or the Supremes, this will prove a worthwhile exercise for EFF et al.
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/firstunitar...
[1] https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles...