New Ruling, Spying Legal

[bradly1101]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677

"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks."

I thought there was no evidence of disrupting attacks.

They have our contacts, so they can build a web, and if through no fault of your own you are somehow connected to someone who commits a crime, are you then scrutinized?

And if not for economic espionage, why spy on corporations?

This is heading to the Supreme Court. I know and totally understand why other countries feel the way they do about the NSA.

 

[Fern]

Geez:

But in Friday's decision, Judge Pauley, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, said "the balance of equities and the public interest tilt firmly in favour of the Government's position".

He dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

In the conclusion to his 53-page ruling, he writes: "The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute."

So, the 4th is a right except when he says it isn't. Awesome.

Fern

 

[waggy]

anyone surprised? We figured they would find a judge to say its lawfull.

nothing is set Until it get's in front of the SCOTUS. then i wonder...

 

[lotus503]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677

"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks."

I though there was no evidence of disrupting attacks.

They have our contacts, so they can build a web, and if through no fault of your own you are somehow connected to someone who commits a crime, are you then scrutinized?

And if not for economic espionage, why spy on corporations?

This is heading to the Supreme Court. I know and totally understand why other countries feel the way they do about the NSA.

My issue with spying is the indiscriminate nature the system used to collect data. Then the NSA says trust us were only looking at XYZ.

the other argument is the fact that there are algorithms that sift through data to determine triggers, that are bubbled up to humans to look at.

Just because its not a human looking initially doesn't mean its not spying.

 

[bradly1101]

When I voted for Obama I was sure he'd facilitate changing stuff like this.

 

[gevorg]

 

[TheAdvocate]

At worst: this is as terrible as it sounds, and nothing will be done about it.

At best: this is as terrible as it sounds, and people will finally realize that the constitution does need an occassional update, and remember the system for approving amendments.

The missing aspect of the cliche activist judge argument is that judges can be expressly overruled by the people. There is a mechanism.

[edit]

I wanna comment on this:

He also noted: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit.

"Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection.

Did he seriously also use the "well the other kids did it" argument? I believe he did. Wow. The whole reason you are in your judicial position is to protect average joes from this shit, not to use their own stupdiity and inaction against them. This is like a soldier on a post saying, "fuckit - why bother?"

 

[bradly1101]

He also noted: ["Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit.

"Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection.]

Did he seriously also use the "well the other kids did it" argument? I believe he did. Wow. The whole reason you are in your judicial position is to protect average joes from this shit, not to use their own stupdiity and inaction against them. This is like a soldier on a post saying, "fuckit - why bother?"

The keyword being voluntarily.

 

[Specop 007]

Change you can damn sure believe in!

 

[TheAdvocate]

The keyword being voluntarily.

Oh, now that's an entirely separate debate - and a very vigorous one at that.

 

[Matt1970]

Oh I am sure a NY District Judge is not where this will end.

 

[Jimzz]

Is it me or did he write his ruling up more along the lines of what a politician would say vs how it meets legal standards?

Like the end justifies the means. i.e. 9/11 (yes he used 9/11) could have been avoided...
Well I guess putting drunks to death on the side of the road if they blow more then .08 would also save lives but I am guessing it should not pass legal standards.

 

[Angry Irishman]

2+2=5

 

[Scotteq]

Is it me or did he write his ruling up more along the lines of what a politician would say vs how it meets legal standards?

The NSA chose their judge well.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Since it's legal then I'm sure the judge and the other advocates won't mind me tapping their phones and intercepting digital transmissions. After all, what have you to hide?

 

[Oldgamer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677

"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks."

I thought there was no evidence of disrupting attacks.

They have our contacts, so they can build a web, and if through no fault of your own you are somehow connected to someone who commits a crime, are you then scrutinized?

And if not for economic espionage, why spy on corporations?

This is heading to the Supreme Court. I know and totally understand why other countries feel the way they do about the NSA.

I wonder what is going to happen as time goes by, and they continue all this spying and gathering of information on all US citizens? What do you think may happen down the road?

Is it possible to spy on people in high places and get dirt on them, enough to embarrass them, or keep them in line?

Will protesters be targeted? I mean what are the worst case scenarios of all this being legal and rubber stamped now?

I am asking legitimate questions. I am not trying to be a dick or anything, I just want to know what most people think is going to happen with all this data they are collecting on all of us.

 

[Kadarin]

It's about control. The Powers That Be will use NSA data to ensure that no non-Statist candidate will get elected to the Presidency.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The keyword being voluntarily.

Also note that as far as I know those private agencies cannot tell me I can't fly on a plane or haul someone off to jail.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The NSA chose their judge well.

Actually that's one of Bill Clinton's

 

[bradly1101]

I wonder what is going to happen as time goes by, and they continue all this spying and gathering of information on all US citizens? What do you think may happen down the road?

Is it possible to spy on people in high places and get dirt on them, enough to embarrass them, or keep them in line?

Will protesters be targeted? I mean what are the worst case scenarios of all this being legal and rubber stamped now?

I am asking legitimate questions. I am not trying to be a dick or anything, I just want to know what most people think is going to happen with all this data they are collecting on all of us.

Unless they are forthcoming about that, I guess we'll never know. Which makes it even harder to trust what they say they don't do with the data. There's no way to get the info; it would "reveal too much."

 

[bradly1101]

This is what happens when you make policy based on fear.

 

[werepossum]

It's about control. The Powers That Be will use NSA data to ensure that no non-Statist candidate will get elected to the Presidency.

This. Meanwhile there's a schizophrenic with a history of violence literally 18" from the President while the NSA is intercepting EVERY American transmission and spying on freakin' World of Warcraft games.

 

[Chaotic42]

Change you can damn sure believe in!

Yep. Where are all the cutesy videos now?

This one got posted here. At least it's catchy.
This one (also posted here) is just creepy.

 

[Texashiker]

This is a sad sad day for our rights.

 

[Agent11]

http://judgepedia.org/William_Pauley

Appointed by Clinton. . .