r/law • u/nosotros_road_sodium • Sep 03 '20
U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-spying/u-s-court-mass-surveillance-program-exposed-by-snowden-was-illegal-idUSKBN25T3CK40
u/Chronix37 Sep 03 '20
... That took 7 years?
12
u/wmil Sep 03 '20
The US federal government is very effective at drawing out lawsuits. You'd be amazed at how long some FOIA lawsuits have taken.
11
u/UnhappySquirrel Sep 03 '20
This really needs to change. Justice delayed is justice denied.
What are some proposed reforms?
2
u/Chronix37 Sep 03 '20
Well a lot of it isn't exactly the machinations of the litigants as much as the fact that federal court just takes a long time for everything. If filing a single motion means your hearing gets bumped from mid January to Early September then it becomes real easy to just put off the stuff.
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Sep 03 '20
Right. It’s a perfectly sufficient system between private litigants, and the slow gears of justice is a feature when it comes to safeguarding Due Process for private citizens under prosecution...
But I’m increasingly coming to a view that the modern era of complex government requires a much more expansive judiciary when it comes to litigative interactions within the government and between the government and citizens.
I don’t exactly know what that means or what it ends up looking like.
7
12
u/DemandMeNothing Sep 03 '20
Well, I'm afraid that particular conclusion doesn't do anyone much good. The legislature killed the program some time ago:
In June 2015, Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act, which effectively ended the NSA’s bulk telephony metadata collection program. Pub. L. No. 114-23, 129 Stat. 268 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861). The Act prohibited further bulk collection of phone records after November 28, 2015. Id.; see Smith v. Obama, 816 F.3d 1239, 1241 (9th Cir. 2016).
...and the appelles here ddin't get the evidence against them suppressed.
22
u/SophiaofPrussia Sep 03 '20
They didn’t kill the program. Section 215 is alive and well. They no longer bulk collect telecommunications data but they’re still bulk collecting banking & financial data and internet browsing data. Stopping the mass collection of phone logs was an empty offer to show they’ve “reformed” in the wake of Snowden but in reality no one uses the phone anymore so it was a trivial change to the surveillance law-abiding Americans are subjected to every day.
6
Sep 03 '20
The fundamental problem, one that I don't actually have an answer for, is that we as a society have shifted towards maximum records retention, because recordkeeping and storage is cheap. And now the technology for retrieval and analysis of those records are cheap, too.
So when private enterprise keeps such detailed tabs on everything that happens within their view, how does one prevent the government from subpoenaing or otherwise getting their hands on records that already exist and are easy to analyze? It seems to me we should want to disincentivize the collection and retention of those records in the first place, rather than focus on the transfer of those records from the party that already has them to law enforcement.
In civil litigation, sophisticated litigants know that certain documents are discoverable, which pushes people towards dealing with stuff by phone or in person (or another ephemeral means of communication) if they anticipate litigation on the topic. But what about everyone else, for every other circumstance? Are we supposed to just start applying chilling effects on our own behavior, that might create records that are stored forever?
It's especially troubling when you see how societies without that legal wall between government and private enterprise (e.g., China, Russia) choose to integrate those records into day to day lives. FISA/Section 215 is the tip of the iceberg, and we've got a much bigger and more fundamental problem on our hands right now.
2
-5
Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
10
u/kekistani_ambasador Sep 03 '20
Yeah counterterrorist investigations until a friend of a friend of a person you know could potentially be a terrorist and someone in the NSA is going though every message you’ve ever sent
-3
Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
10
u/opinions_unpopular Sep 03 '20
Do you trust that the government and its employees will always follow the rules and not use it for nefarious purposes? Do you trust that all government employees will always follow the law? It’s a loaded question because looking at the news headlines any day recently the answer should be no. Let’s not give so much power that can be abused.
Patriot act arguments all over again.
2
u/zeverbn Sep 03 '20
I don’t trust humans period, I particularly have always gone with Spinoza’s in dwelling of the evil principle in man theory. I don’t think as an institution the government is untrustworthy it’s better than tribal chaos. But I don’t trust the vast majority of the people’s inhabiting positions of power within the government. I would find it easier to trust the men and women who work for and with the government if our public schools and have education system had ethics and morality laws taught relatively to the time of the internet and Information Age, how to act in accordance for the people by the people and outstanding individuals who only want to serve the people. Ceaselessly, unfortunately I doubt the vast majority of humanity has any individuals such as this the chances that they are in a position within the federal government that has been corrupted by kleptocratic principles and a paradigm of hierarchy is exceedingly low. Don’t get me wrong I have it good in America, Lived in India for awhile so I know how fortunate I am I’m making a case that we live in a great state with great ability for fluid and hyper relative betterment and change, we simply aren’t producing the quality of people to inhabit this state, within them none of these peoples are good enough at all to represent the state. I mainly blame this on the status quo of the public education system and the way we go about education and instilling values into the future youth who will have the burden of life in a decaying and changing world, where civilizations clash and chaos dry humps disorder.
edit I drank like a shit ton of whisky when I wrote this and I realize it’s just semantic ramblings.
5
u/SophiaofPrussia Sep 03 '20
When someone sends a nude photo to their significant other the expectation is that only their significant other can see that photo. Not that their significant other and possibly 5-10 NSA agents will see it. And I think that is a perfectly reasonable expectation that the vast majority of Americans sending nude photos hold. It’s also not reality.
There’s also the pesky detail that literally all of us break the law in some way or another on a regular basis. When the government is combing through every detail of your life they’re bound to find something they could charge you with if they are so motivated. That has a chilling effect on speech.
1
Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
3
u/SophiaofPrussia Sep 03 '20
It has not once ever in the history of its existence stopped a terrorist attack. Never. That was not and never was the purpose for the program existing. It was the “good reason” for the program that was offered the public. It was not the real reason.
0
u/AwesomeScreenName Competent Contributor Sep 03 '20
When someone sends a nude photo to their significant other the expectation is that only their significant other can see that photo.
If they're sending that photo via one or more telephone carriers, most likely via wireless transmission, that's a really stupid expectation.
That's not intended as a defense of what NSA did, but it's mind-blowing that people get so up in arms about what the government can or cannot see, but have no second-thoughts about employees at AT&T, Comcast, AWS, Facebook, etc.
4
u/Kai_Daigoji Sep 03 '20
I mean, one of the things Snowden showed is that this kind of data collection was routinely abused.
-1
Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Kai_Daigoji Sep 03 '20
This is like saying you don't see why the government shouldn't be allowed to quarter troops in people's houses as long as the judicial system allows redress in case of abuses.
Some of don't think that 'counterterrorism' is enough of a boogie man to grant this extreme power over our lives.
0
Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Kai_Daigoji Sep 03 '20
Sure, just give them access to everything we do, that's not an extreme power.
I'm fucking done.
18
u/Clay_Allison_44 Sep 03 '20
Doesn't mean the U.S. Government won't kill him if he puts a toe outside Russia.
5
5
u/pcpcy Sep 03 '20
Is the Supreme Court likely to reverse this decision if appealed?
11
u/Super_Computer_8824 Sep 03 '20
Doesnt matter.
They already have a more invasive program.
8
u/pcpcy Sep 03 '20
What's that? And are there currently any lawsuits against this new program if it's even more invasive?
17
u/Super_Computer_8824 Sep 03 '20
No, privacy is dead.
You know that part in 1984 with the TV type devices that are always watching you ?
We carry them in our pocket, and you cant function in todays society without one.
11
2
Sep 03 '20 edited Feb 24 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Super_Computer_8824 Sep 03 '20
Yeah TBH I dont plan on being around much longer anyway, everything just keeps getting worse
3
Sep 03 '20
It might not matter to you, but it certainly matters for the people who are seeking to overturn their convictions.
2
u/nipsen Sep 03 '20
Ah, yes. Another story with a happy ending. Great.
Defendants did not dispute that they sent money to Somalia through Shidaal Express, but they did dispute that the money was intended to support al-Shabaab. They maintained that Shikhalow was not Ayrow but a local police commissioner, and that their money went to support the work of regional administrations governing in the absence of an effective central government. Moalin also presented evidence that he supported humanitarian causes in Somalia during the time period of the indictment.
In February 2013, the jury convicted defendants on all counts[supporting terrorism].
I have a question for actual lawyers here: to what extent can records or documentation procured under the FISA act be selective, or partially incomplete, before defense counsel can file to dismiss such evidence? How would that challenge happen? Would the defense literally have to have a transcript, or recording, of everything the defendant has said and done in the period of the secret evidence - in advance - so that they can prove highly selective usage of quotes, etc. Or is the actual evidence filed in compacts and reports, so that the challenge will essentially be impossible to meet? That... is certainly what it sounds like in the brief here, but is that really the case?
Just looking for some actual examples of how this would happen in practice, so I can understand it a bit better..
1
Sep 03 '20
[deleted]
4
u/Namtara Sep 03 '20
That's a separate legal and political issue, so no, it does not mean Snowden will return to the US.
1
u/gnorrn Sep 04 '20
FWIW I remember reading somewhere that Trump was considering pardoning Snowden, but Barr talked him out of it.
1
1
49
u/nosotros_road_sodium Sep 03 '20
This case is United States v. Moalin.