Comment by diafygi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by diafygi | Hacker News Reader

Firstly, https://eff.org/donate

Secondly, from the judgment[1]:

    Based on the public record, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed
    to establish a sufficient factual basis to find they have standing to sue
    under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their
    Internet communications.

Another day, another ruling that we can't prove we are spied on. Whenever you can get the authority to rule on the actual program's legality, it's ruled illegal[2].

Thirdly, from the judgment:

    Further, having reviewed the Government Defendants’ classified submissions,
    the Court finds that the Claim must be dismissed because even if Plaintiffs
    could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to
    be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require
    disclosure of state secret information.

This is the surprising part. How in the hell can a federal law trump the Constitution? This part of the ruling sets the precedent that the Executive can violate the Constitutional rights of anyone, including other branches of government (including the Judiciary itself!), and get away with it if the program is a state secret, even if you have evidence of the violation. This is very clear and firm loss of power of the Judiciary and Legislative branches.

Why is the Judiciary rolling over like this? The rule of law is being systematically shut down all around them, and they are just sitting there making themselves obsolete. The reason we have three branches of government that are adversarial is so that when one starts to grab for power, the others shut it down. Unchallengable Constitutional violations is exactly the kind of power grab that the Judiciary is supposed to shut down.

Fourthly: https://eff.org/donate

EDIT: Okay, after having read the full judgment, the very strange thing about it is that the can't-sue-even-if-have-standing claim is almost entirely without references. The standing section has tons of references to prior case law. But the state secrets section has very few citations and and is quite a bit of "grave damage to national security" talk without citation.

---

[1]: https://ia801403.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2...

[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su...

For whatever my opinion is worth (guess what I'm not: an attorney), that final bit of absurdity was added on purpose so that the Supreme Court pretty much has to take this case.

It's a thing you see sometimes. A lower court can't really make the ruling it wants to make for a variety of reasons. But what it can do is poison the ruling in a way that forces an appellate court to make a decision.

Deliberately teeing up for the appellate court? From the judge's perspective, ruling against the government at this stage in the case is very dangerous - but making a ruling like this gets it off his plate and up the food chain (where it would go anyway). And in this way it gets up there quicker.

The judge may also have seen enough information to think that the NSA might have sufficient minimization procedures in place to make the outcome of a suit uncertain, but the details of minimization procedures would allow terrorists to tailor their behavior to avoid some of the surveillance.

What do you do if you're a judge in that situation?

If I were a judge, I hopefully would realize that this was about more than the specific implications of the present program. This is question of who can make claims to who. If the Executive can say to the Judiciary, "This will hurt people." I (as a judge) should have the power to say, "I don't trust you, so let's hear arguments from another point of view."

Trust is something a balanced and representative government should not rely on. The ruling in this case is an acquiescence of power from the Judiciary to the Executive.

I decided to stop donating to EFF and instead donate to the ACLU when the EFF decided its time was better spent on re-litigating apartheid[1].

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/eff-files-amicus-brief...

> re-litigating apartheid

In case you missed it, the legal practices in the US depend on previous court cases.

> U.S. corporations should not enjoy immunity for their purposeful assistance, technological or otherwise, in gross human rights violations (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/eff-files-amicus-brief...)

A positive ruling on this case, which presents to the courts not only a racist and violent but also a clearly stigmatized political system, would affect greatly how courts would behave towards companies collaborating with similar governments in the present time.

Furthermore, are you kidding me? IBM should be absolved of responsibility for aiding and abating severe human rights violations? Stop giving money to ACLU too, then. https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice-human-rights/mandel...

Agree with you here. Currently companies are selling technology with massive power for oppression to whoever has the cash. Creating a framework to hold them accountable is a win for freedom.

>In case you missed it, the legal practices in the US depend on previous court cases.

You could dial back the snark a little here.

>Furthermore, are you kidding me? IBM should be absolved of responsibility for aiding and abating severe human rights violations?

I never said that. What I am saying is that there are other groups that would be better suited to take up this cause. Technologically minded people tend to be crappy socially and ethically.

An amicus brief isn't a big deal...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com