> All the rest is completely legal.
That's a bold assertion not borne out by the facts. Examples:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-p...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/indepe...
That's a bold assertion not borne out by the facts. Examples:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-p...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/indepe...
But 15 Federal district court judges have approved the NSA actions as part of the FISA courts. That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal.
The third party doctrine is very clear. Records about you do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The judge who ruled against the NSA wants to change the law. Maybe the courts will change the law. SCOTUS has disfavored mass surveillance tactics in the recent past.
But right now, it is legal.
Sure it is - that sort of disagreement makes it unsettled law, which is where SCOTUS steps in. Last year they (thankfully) ruled that cell phones can't be searched in most circumstances without a warrant, and I'd expect at least a few of the numerous suits that popped up in the wake of the Snowden leaks to wind their way to Court eventually.
Right now, large parts of the NSA's actions are of disputed legality. We'll see what the justices say.
The SCOTUS is more likely to take a case where there is a split in the case law among the federal circuit courts (appellate courts). A split among federal district courts (trial courts) does not really have much significance.
It will have go to the DC circuit before it carries any real weight.
A single judge goes off reservation pretty frequently.
"The holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed."