Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging FISA

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the battle-of-the-four-letter-acronyms dept.

Privacy 542

Wired's Threat Level blog reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Recently passed by both the House and Senate, FISA was signed into law on Thursday by President Bush. The ACLU has fought aspects of FISA in the past. The new complaint (PDF) alleges the following: "The law challenged here supplies none of the safeguards that the Constitution demands. It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents without identifying the people to be surveilled; without specifying the facilities, places, premises, or property to be monitored; without observing meaningful limitations on the retention, analysis, and dissemination of acquired information; without obtaining individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; and, indeed, without even making prior administrative determinations that the targets of surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism."

cancel ×

542 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting... (5, Interesting)

Adreno (1320303) | about 6 years ago | (#24172207)

... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#24172285)

Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 6 years ago | (#24172433)

Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.

As a registered Republican who's disgusted with the New Aged GOP, I was fully planning on voting for Obama in November until this vote. I chatted with a pro-DFLer who is a huge Obama supporter and told him my change and why. You know what he said? He told me that because Obama is now the candidate he has to make sure he has support from both sides. Ugh. I'm not sure how you can support both sides when you vote for this intrusion and retroactive law. I just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.

I cannot vote for any candidate that voted in favor of this and now I'm not sure what to do. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of two evils as they both are. I have lost what tiny little bit of faith that still remained following the failure of Congress/Senate and our fear-creating leader.

The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

Ayeffkay (1139265) | about 6 years ago | (#24172527)

The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

strabes (1075839) | about 6 years ago | (#24172555)

just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.

Because it's easier to get elected when you promise to give handouts, take action, tax the rich, etc, instead of trying to get elected on the position that you're going to eliminate the special interest benefits, shrink government, and lower taxes. People always want the Government to serve their special interests, but no one else's. This is one of the reasons why our Government has grown so large. Another reason is that we have forgotten the tyranny and oppression that in inevitable when the government controls close to 40% of the nation's income and when our rights are slowly being eliminated and put into the hands of a few powerful people at the top. "It's for your own good" they tell us. "We need to take away your rights to protect you from the terrorists." I must ask why is it not possible to both protect us from the terrorists (a proper role of government) and grant us our rights? The reason is that big government precedents have already been set which allow the government to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.

Re:Interesting... (3, Interesting)

dunnius (1298159) | about 6 years ago | (#24172731)

This is why I fear that a revolution may be the only option left for our country. It really is unfortunate that the two major candidates have decided to take a daily crap on the Constitution.

Re:Interesting... (5, Informative)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 6 years ago | (#24172907)

...and grant us our rights?

...and PROTECT AND DEFEND our rights?

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172605)

I think there's a step between succumbing to evil and utilizing militant action. that step being secession through 1. popular agreement, and 2. recognition by other sovereign bodies (I made up the 1 and 2 to sound official, IANAPS [political scientist]), starting with smaller nearby nations (hmm, I wonder if there's any nearby nation that would enjoy having a neighbor to the north open trade routes with them?) ... a presidential counsel, a populace with an actual say in politics, and also many problems with illegal trade, militias, etc... a very interesting road, indeed! I'd like to see it paved!

cascadia ftw!

Option (3, Insightful)

bobbuck (675253) | about 6 years ago | (#24172645)

"The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution."

Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?

Re:Option (3, Insightful)

sleigher (961421) | about 6 years ago | (#24172803)

He may be an option like Nader was on option to get Bush in office. I like what Bob Barr has become but I hate where he came from. He has changed many of his policies recently for the better but that almost frightens me more. What might he become with power......

Complicated (3, Interesting)

bussdriver (620565) | about 6 years ago | (#24172753)

Sometimes laws that have no chance of surviving the courts are supported as a form of pandering.

Nothing new in this case EXCEPT:

The Supreme court is corrupt and the republic has already fallen (making it just entertainment for the politically active.)

The population should be against it, so a move like this by Obama when he has a history of abstaining on this stuff is extremely interesting as to what really must be going on. We are not allowed to hear what he does; could be the CIA is feeding them more lies and Obama isn't wise enough (since he wasn't privy on the Iraq vote I never bought his line about always opposing the war.) OR certain powerful forces demand the passing of the bill and Obama serves or must kiss their ass.

No, I'm not a Hillary supporter. Hillary voted against it but I'm confident if she were in his shoes she would have voted for it FOR THE SAME CURIOUS REASONS.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | about 6 years ago | (#24172773)

You've just cited the reason why Obama is very likely to lose in November - he isn't perfect. The people who began as excited about participating in politics and voting, no longer are.

Therefore instead of getting someone who minced words on FISA, and ended up voting unhappily for it, we're going to get someone who is enthusiastic for it.

Besides - there is one way Bush can deliver the November election to McCain - attack Iran. I have this funny feeling that if the nation is going to war, there's no way they will vote for Obama over McCain. If we're at the brink of war, people would likely vote for Obama over McCain, in order to reasonably pull us back. But if we're there, look for McCain to win. Look for an October attack on Iran. (Or - this President would NEVER use any of the government institutions for a purely political reason, would he?) (Note: that's sarcasm.)

Re:Interesting... (4, Informative)

Narpak (961733) | about 6 years ago | (#24172779)

There is still a way to change this through the democratic system. But it requires people to actively vote for independent candidates; and to actively research the people running for office. Instead of thinking that you can only vote for democrats or republican. There are other parties out there, they are small, but if people are able to disengage themselves from the dogma of the two party system; perhaps things can change.

Re:Interesting... (1)

dodecalogue (1281666) | about 6 years ago | (#24172845)

there's also the very realistic possibility of a sane, legislated, bloodless (sorry all you mad-max wanna-bes) secession. gain legitimacy in the eyes of other sovereign nations, open trade routes (hello, cuba!) and support a "governmentality" that the residing populace approves of (much easier in a smaller territory.. the U.S. is ridiculously huge).

cascadia ftw! (first motto? annually rotating anthem by cascadian musicians? presidential counsel of 12? .. could be extremely interesting, and I'm not even mentioning the illegal trade and mafias and other troubles that would need to be addressed!)

Re:Interesting... (4, Interesting)

imipak (254310) | about 6 years ago | (#24172883)

The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

And that, ladies gentlemen and geek masses, is just one reason why the "...to overthrow the government if they turn into a tyranny!" argument in support of the 2nd Amendment is baloney. Try it and see whether the general public see you as a terrorist or a patriot. Have you planned what you'd like for your last meal? (Oh yeah, and even if you DID somehow manage to raise a large, angry mob of enraged disenchanted ex-mainstreamers, how well d'you think you'd do against a modern military? Hmmmm, I suppose if the numbers were that great there'd be a split in the military as well as the general public. Sounds like a good recipe for some dystopian near-term future fiction [wikipedia.org] to me!) (Note -- I'm not saying there are no other arguments in favour of the 2nd amendment, just that that one, which was the original intent of the framers, doesn't wash any more.)

Re:Interesting... (1)

menace3society (768451) | about 6 years ago | (#24172905)

I think Obama was counting on the bill getting struck down. If he's right, his long-term popularity loss will be minimal once the whole thing blows over, and he'll have helped his image as serious about national security.

Frankly, I think the better move would have been to schedule his trip to Iraq earlier and used the "out of town" excuse, maybe even hold a press conference there to steal some of the bill's thunder. But then, I'm no political consultant.

This should really be the year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172943)

for the Libertarians. Unfortunately the deck is stacked against them...won't be on the ballot in all 50 states, won't get free public tax payer money for campaigns, I'd like to see someone do something about this...lets send the Neocons repubs and ultralib dems the way of the whigs...

Re:Interesting... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172291)

It's probably a reflection that there is really no choice for a forthcoming President, both are pretty rubbish candidates. It's a nice sentiment on telling everyone to vote for other candidates / parties, but that's not going to happen in reality.

Re:Interesting... (4, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 years ago | (#24172305)

Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

No. I don't know three people that know FISA from Adam's Housecat. And of the two I DO know, neither thinks it's nearly so important as how many times the Mayor of Mandeville is going to get a free pass on his drunken driving.

Hate to break it to you, but most of America has been impacted by the anti-terror legislation not even the slightest. And thus has little reason to really care about it....

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | about 6 years ago | (#24172483)

They've been impacted by it, they just don't realize it yet.

Re:Interesting... (2, Interesting)

GospelHead821 (466923) | about 6 years ago | (#24172485)

Not only do many Americans not care about it, I've discussed similar laws with other people and they can't even seem to grasp why I care. They can't understand objecting to a law on philosophical or ethical grounds.

That is different from somebody who can say, "I understand why it upsets you, but I won't personally get upset until it affects me." Neither attitude is particularly responsible, in my opinion. The attitude that I see, however, actually has a chilling effect on citizens who do object based on principles alone and also on politicians who might otherwise vote conscientiously. There is a large fraction of people who, because they can't justify an objection on purely philosophical grounds, see opposition to such a law as being soft on terrorism and nothing more.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172695)

Not only do many Americans not care about it, I've discussed similar laws with other people and they can't even seem to grasp why I care. They can't understand objecting to a law on philosophical or ethical grounds.

That is because they are idiots (referring to the old/original meaning usage of the term).

From Wikipedia:

Idiot" was originally created to refer to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.

Today, those people, which used to be referred to as idiots, are taking part in the democratic process (they even can get to be presidents), turning democracy into an idiocracy.

Re:Interesting... (1)

strabes (1075839) | about 6 years ago | (#24172559)

At least they don't actually support it, like both of my parents do. "The Government needs to do this to protect us from the TERRORISTS!!!!!"

Re:Interesting... (1, Informative)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 6 years ago | (#24172631)

The problem is when the terrorists are already in the Congress and the White House.

Re:Interesting... (1)

slugstone (307678) | about 6 years ago | (#24172923)

I think the Government need to protect us from falling down STAIRS!!!!!. :-P

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#24172647)

I am not an American citizen. I have never even visited America, not a single part of it. Yet I am seriously affected by the US anti-terror legislations, primarily through air travel. All these travel restrictions largely originate in USA (and their colony, the UK). Either directly, or indirectly (I consider the USA as one of the main causes of terrorism - which I loosely define as "violent attacks on civilian targets not taking place in a war zone").

Also the enormous amount of information demanded by the USA on air travelers going there is an issue. Doing business with the USA is an issue as this enormous privacy intrusion for merely wanting to visit the territory is stopping me from going there. It sometimes makes me wonder whether mere phone calls and e-mails between me and US customers are safe from this. Though that does not hit me directly or visibly - yet.

And of course, last but not least, the USA is pushing many other countries to implement intrusive laws similar to their own. And even in that way the USA legislation is reaching me.

If only through air travel, middle class America has been impacted. Look at the state of the airliners: that they are still going bankrupt one after another can not be just because the fuel cost is up. It is also because there are so much less passengers: a direct effect of the anti-terror legislations, so much security hassle, and I can't stop thinking "oh, so much security, then really everyone is trying to get us! Must be dangerous in the skies!". Airlines going bankrupt means more unemployment, etc. It is not that the US economy is doing so well, and making people live in fear is not known to give a great stimulus to your economy.

So middle class America is hit by these measures, they just probably do not realise how much, and their politicians will never dare to explain.

Re:Interesting... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 years ago | (#24172849)

If only through air travel, middle class America has been impacted. Look at the state of the airliners: that they are still going bankrupt one after another can not be just because the fuel cost is up. It is also because there are so much less passengers: a direct effect of the anti-terror legislations, so much security hassle, and I can't stop thinking "oh, so much security, then really everyone is trying to get us! Must be dangerous in the skies!"

Umm, no. Bankruptcies in airlines pretty much happen when they cut rates to compete with each other. Not because of security concerns. I fly now and then, and the only real effect "security" has on me is that I have to take my shoes off before I step through the metal-detectors. Which is, at most, a minor annoyance. On par with having to buckle my seatbelt, and well below having to remember to take my hypertension medicine.

Note that the last few times I flew, the planes were pretty much full. Hardly a sign that security regulations have impacted ticket sales all that much.

Nonetheless, if the security regulations have affected YOU, don't take anything I say as suggesting you have no right to complain about them. Just understand that the 99.9% of everyone NOT so affected isn't going to be terribly interested in listening to your rants (or so they will perceive them).

Re:Interesting... (1)

volxdragon (1297215) | about 6 years ago | (#24172931)

Most of the whine deleted...

If only through air travel, middle class America has been impacted. Look at the state of the airliners: that they are still going bankrupt one after another can not be just because the fuel cost is up. It is also because there are so much less passengers: a direct effect of the anti-terror legislations, so much security hassle, and I can't stop thinking "oh, so much security, then really everyone is trying to get us! Must be dangerous in the skies!". Airlines going bankrupt means more unemployment, etc. It is not that the US economy is doing so well, and making people live in fear is not known to give a great stimulus to your economy.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've read in a while. Airlines are going out of business due to a stagnating US economy, shitty business practices, and staggering fuel bills. Frankly, a few need to go, and the prices do need to go up. Adjust the cost of airfare for inflation and look back to air travel in the 70's or 80's. It's not really that expensive these days, matter of fact, it's still largely CHEAPER to fly today than it was in the past.

Re:Interesting... (1)

mattwarden (699984) | about 6 years ago | (#24172729)

Amen. I was talking to someone about the FISA stuff, trying to vent my frustration. She responds with "hmmm, and do you think the allegations of him being a Muslim are true?!"

w. t. f.

Our country is doomed.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about 6 years ago | (#24172401)

FISA represents a shift of power from the people to the government. So politicians are more for it than the general population.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Dark_Gravity (872049) | about 6 years ago | (#24172795)

... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

McCain abstained. [senate.gov]

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172921)

Just because he wasn't there to vote on it doesn't mean he doesn't support it. We all know he's toeing the party line nowadays, and he's made statements that he'd support immunity. Your post is either grossly ignorant, or an incredibly lame attempt to validate your support of McCain. Either way, it's pretty pathetic.

At least (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172211)

there are people who still believe in the Constitution out there. They have my support.

hooray sortof (2, Insightful)

mambosauce (1236224) | about 6 years ago | (#24172213)

i'm glad to see someone still loves the constitution, but the aclu will fail as always

Re:hooray sortof (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 years ago | (#24172243)

As a non-American, watching from the sidelines, I have to say that it's nice to see someone at least try to stop the erosion of freedoms in your country. It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier.

Re:hooray sortof (5, Funny)

pxlmusic (1147117) | about 6 years ago | (#24172255)

you're right, i should have started saving my lobbyist bribe money at a much earlier age.

Re:hooray sortof (3, Insightful)

dodecalogue (1281666) | about 6 years ago | (#24172801)

I think this is a good point, actually, in that it shows that many people around the globe like to come across as more informed about america than the americans, but when you're able to see the same sort of parroting that you see in the ignorant unwashed american masses or whatever ("americans are dumb, they elected george w bush twice and he is ruining the world" "lol yeah") you realize that hickitude and groupthink and reductive summaries of large groups of people is a worldwide bug/feature.

Re:hooray sortof (-1, Troll)

cryptodan (1098165) | about 6 years ago | (#24172349)

It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier.

Yeah we should have demanded that Clinton get off his lazy ass and take a fucking risk and ignore the advice his legal team gave him, and issue an assassination order on Bin Laden, and kill anyone else who associated with him. Then maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened, the patriot act wouldn't exist, this new fisa law wouldn't have any merit, the protect America act wouldn't be in existence, but as we all know Clinton was a gutless spineless president who failed his job in so many ways.

Re:hooray sortof (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172363)

Clinton did try to kill bin Laden, and the right cried about him "wagging the dog".

Hindsight is a motherfucker, huh?

Re:hooray sortof (2, Interesting)

cryptodan (1098165) | about 6 years ago | (#24172427)

Clinton did try to kill bin Laden, and the right cried about him "wagging the dog".

Hindsight is a motherfucker, huh?

Yes it is, and that didn't happen because Janet Reno and his Legal Team to not do it. Had he took a risk like he did lying under oath then maybe all this terrorist talk wouldn't exist, but who knows. Maybe it would have happened anyways or maybe it wouldn't have.

Or Maybe if the Reagan administration wouldn't have helped Bin Laden and Crew fight the russians in the 80's then maybe this all wouldn't have happened. History sure does love biting us in the ass, but many people don't think that far back. Instead they only go back to January 20th 2001 when Bush took office and lay entire blame on him.

I will never understand how people can hold President Clinton up on a pedestal and praise him as the most influential president ever and think of him as some sort of God send, when in fact is is neither. To me he is the worse president to have ever laid foot in the Oval Office for not doing his job better.

/rant

George Bush (2, Insightful)

stabiesoft (733417) | about 6 years ago | (#24172761)

is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.

Re:George Bush (2, Insightful)

cryptodan (1098165) | about 6 years ago | (#24172929)

is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.

He only kept it running by signing a budget that grossly underfunded the Department of Defense and hindered research and development. He also hindered equipment upgrades, and now our soldiers are over in Iraq and Afghanistan using piss poor equipment. its easy to have a surplus when you fail to give money to a very important part of the National Government and the National Infrastructure. Clinton also had a major economic crisis during his term remember the Dot Com Bubble Bursting and people losing jobs.

Re:hooray sortof (-1, Troll)

cryptodan (1098165) | about 6 years ago | (#24172455)

Yeah go ahead mod me down to troll go ahead and show your inability to accept the truth and the facts that you are presented with. Way to go mods guess you are severely blind. I dont give a shit. You mod anything down to troll that you do not agree with or do not even care to think about. Can't think critically or logically? Then maybe you shouldn't be online.

Re:hooray sortof (-1, Flamebait)

cryptodan (1098165) | about 6 years ago | (#24172621)

Yay some more people and moderators who cannot fathom the truth, and actually think. Maybe they should take your moderating points away and give them to someone who can actually think.

Re:hooray sortof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172495)

It's not that it 'may' get to the point. It will get to the point when people suddenly wake up and say WTF. The sheeple in this country are so brainwashed by reality shows and other crap that government is good, terrorism is bad and are willing to give up every aspect of freedom. The current administration interprets the constitution completely different than everyone else. It is quite sad to see what is happening in this country.

Re:hooray sortof (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | about 6 years ago | (#24172657)

People have given up their sovereignty to a government that promises them things. The problem is that they promise them things they either don't deliver, or deliver so resoundingly poorly as to be sad. The worst part is that they promise things done with our own money, but with such graft, greed and inefficiency as to be laughable if it weren't so seriously screwed up.

Re:hooray sortof (4, Informative)

magarity (164372) | about 6 years ago | (#24172295)

but the aclu will fail as always
 
Fail as always? What are you smoking? They frequently win. Don't forget their former solicitor general is on the supreme court.

Hey Obama! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172215)

I am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.

Do it! (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 6 years ago | (#24172365)

And be VERY specific about WHY you are doing so.

Money is all that most of them understand. Money gets them elected. Money gets them re-elected.

Re:Do it! (1)

garcia (6573) | about 6 years ago | (#24172511)

Money is all that most of them understand. Money gets them elected. Money gets them re-elected.

Just like the money they all received by the telecommunication companies that paid them (a very small sum IMO) for breaking with the Constitution that they were required to uphold when they took office.

For the small number of voters who would have paid but now will not because the assholes voted for this shit, it probably won't make up for what they were paid by the companies who don't want their asses sued.

Re:Do it! (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 years ago | (#24172567)

but its not 'one person, one vote' its 'one dollar, one vote'.

our dollars are 'noise' compared to the PAC money.

individuals have no power. we never really did, though. its a rich white-man's good ole boy game. if you think your letter writing counts for anything, you are ignorant of how the world really works. I wish they'd teach REAL LIFE civics in civics class. how much money it takes to REALLY get a bill passes or to buy influence. seriously - we should train kids on the reality and not on some long lost fairy tail about 'one man, one vote'. that stopped being true ages ago.

Re:Do it! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#24172913)

So form your own PAC. $150 probably won't make much difference, but $150 from each of 1,000 people will - it buys a TV ad or two. From 10,000 people it becomes a significant proportion of their campaign finance. From 100,000 people and it's going to be close to the largest single donation. From 1,000,000 people and you've pretty much financed a presidential election campaign, and you only need to get 0.3% of the US population to match your $150 contribution.

As I recall (it's been a few years since I studied US politics), each individual may contribute up to $5,000 to PACs, so you can reduce the number of people you need if you can get them to contribute more.

How much is your government worth to you? Perhaps it's being sold to such low bidders because you aren't willing to place a bid yourself.

Re:Hey Obama! (1, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 6 years ago | (#24172375)

I'd be too, except that the ACLU is going to be arguing its cases against an ideologically stacked court.

Re:Hey Obama! (2, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | about 6 years ago | (#24172405)

Why can't we elect any of the members of the supreme court? At least give us one seat.

Re:Hey Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172425)

You see how well we vote for president? Easier just to let them screw it up then to watch our idiot masses do it. We'll be voting in Paris Hilton and her damn dog if america choses.

Re:Hey Obama! (3, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | about 6 years ago | (#24172499)

First response: how would making Supreme Court justices be elected remove ideology? It hasn't worked with Congress or the President.

Second response: Justices are supposed to be above politics. It doesn't always work, but that's the goal. Having them be elected would run counter to that goal.

Re:Hey Obama! (2, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | about 6 years ago | (#24172553)

I would rather vote for someone who wore their ideology on their sleeve than someone who hides it. Everyone has idealogical tendencies even judges and to deny it is to ignore the history of the court itself. Time for change.

Re:Hey Obama! (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | about 6 years ago | (#24172573)

Well, the one saving grace of the SC is that several of the Reagan era Republicans and the loyal bushies are at odds with each other, sometimes leading to a 5 to 4 split in our favor on issues like this.

Re:Hey Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172831)

At this point, I would like to see the ACLU branch off and create a political party, and nominate a candidate run for office of their party.

That could have the potential to make elections truly interesting.

What Killed *BSD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172237)

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] , Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study. [rice.edu]

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [catb.org] , rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

In soviet Russia... (4, Insightful)

matthaak (707485) | about 6 years ago | (#24172247)

...such complaints by the surveilled would be connected tenuously to terrorism.

us phone = us citizen? (0, Flamebait)

magarity (164372) | about 6 years ago | (#24172249)

It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents
 
The aclu seems to think that a us phone number confers us citizenship / permanent residency upon the answerer. Since the bill allows instant tapping of calls to/from joe terrorist's known overseas number and some number in the us, it really isn't so unreasonable.
 
The constitution is not a suicide pact; there, I got in my cute truism, now you can post your cute truism like the one about trading freedoms for security is deserving of neither or somesuch.

Re:us phone = us citizen? (5, Insightful)

Adreno (1320303) | about 6 years ago | (#24172297)

Never trade freedom for security, nor security for freedom. You can increase both with a little thought and creativity. Now we just need to get those thoughtful, creative people elected. THAT is the challenge.

Re:us phone = us citizen? (5, Insightful)

strelitsa (724743) | about 6 years ago | (#24172465)

I'll see your cute truism and raise you a boiled frog allegory. Nobody is disputing the wisdom of conducting surveillance on Joe Terrorist in BFE. Its when the surveillance is somehow also conducted on Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedriver without bothering with little nitpicky things like warrants and Constitutional rights that sticks in one's craw.

Re:us phone = us citizen? (2, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 years ago | (#24172607)

Nobody is disputing the wisdom of conducting surveillance on Joe Terrorist

I am.

communication is like air and water. we don't meter THOSE out. if you breath, you have a right to air and water.

the same SHOULD be true of whispering in a friend's ear. even if one or both people are 'evil'. its NOT for us to decide who gets FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

we need to fix the social error of thinking that privacy is something that can be bought, sold, bargained for, and limited.

I know the reason people WANT to limit freedom of communication, but this will end up harming everyone much more than it will 'catch bad guys'.

sometimes, some things are SO basic - they should not be controlled or given limits. the ability to exchange ideas, even if we disagree with those ideas, should ALWAYS be allowed. period. no conditions.

stop trying to 'fix' the world by limiting things that should never have been limited to begin with.

(and if that does not make sense to you, lets see how long the threshold shifts from 'really really bad guys' to 'slightly bad guys'. you think only terr-a-wrists(tm) will be denied ability to communicate freely? think again. slippery slope and all that. it WILL happen as it IS happening to us all, right now.)

remove all wiretapping. ALL OF IT. no one should be monitored. and if 'stuff' happens, well, THAT is what you get from a truly free society. I still believe the benefits outweight the problems when you maximize freedom and treat all humans like humans.

Re:us phone = us citizen? (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#24172727)

Then lets first treat Joe Terrorist as just any other criminal. Why is a terrorist different, anyway? They should be tracked down using the normal, existing and highly effective police methods, after which specific individuals (mind: specific) can be put under closer surveillance. Just like nowadays the drug cartels are being investigated. No need to randomly start to survey individuals because "they may be terrorists".

There is no reason why "terrorists" should be treated differently, they are not worth it in either personal status, or the number of victims they make. Compare the number of victims of terrorism in the USA of the last, say, 10 years, with the number of victims from drug lords. Not convinced? Take the last, say, five years. See? Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!

Re:us phone = us citizen? (-1, Troll)

cryptodan (1098165) | about 6 years ago | (#24172747)

And what if Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedriver are communicating with Joe Terrorist in BFE and gives Joe Terrorist in BFE information on what to blow up here in the US? And because Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedrive are US Citizens we must go get a warrant and in the mean time Joe Terrorist in BFE and all his other friends are already training to conduct a terrorist attack on say Times Square during New Years Celebrations 2009, and no one knows because of oops the warrant hasn't come back yet due to a stock piling of warrant requests.

Now 4 Million people are in Times Square, and the attack goes off which is a series of IED's and various other explosive devices killing say 1 million people and injuring 500K more. Which half of them die due to New York City's hospitals being unable to handle the capacity. What do you say about "Protecting the rights of Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedriver, Peter and Ulysses did this so they could get money to help pay off their mounting debt.

Re:us phone = us citizen? (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | about 6 years ago | (#24172769)

The constitution is not a suicide pact

Sure it is. The people who wrote it were engaged in a revolution against the greatest superpower of their day. This superpower held a very dim view of such traitors, and those revolutionaries knew that if they failed they would surely die gruesomely at the hands of the English. As Ben Franklin said, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." They were willing to die for the freedoms they enshrined in the Constituation. Why aren't you?

Re:us phone = us citizen? (2, Informative)

fangorious (1024903) | about 6 years ago | (#24172841)

Since the bill allows instant tapping of calls to/from joe terrorist's known overseas number and some number in the us, it really isn't so unreasonable.

The original FISA already allowed for that without being modified. The government already had up to three days after initiation of the tap to obtain a specific warrant. So why was this even needed?

Standing (4, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | about 6 years ago | (#24172369)

We've been here before. The ACLU doesn't have standing to bring the case unless they have a plaintiff who can show that s/he's been the subject of an unConstitutional investigation, and the law allows the Government to claim a "State secret" basis for refusing to confirm that any particular individual fits the bill.

Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.

Re:Standing (1)

corbettw (214229) | about 6 years ago | (#24172515)

Excellent point, and I'm sure the ACLU knows this (the lawyers working there aren't dummies). I suspect they're making a big stink to get this out there, so that people know what kind of law has just been passed. That's a worthwhile goal, in and of itself.

Re:Standing (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172541)

ACLU already listed the plantiffs in their case. [aclu.org] Let's not forget, the only reason for FISA was because the ACLU has already won, warrantless wiretapping is illegal.

Re:Standing (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 years ago | (#24172551)

Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.

a self-locking exclusionary law. no way to prove any damages because - ITS ALL IN SECRET!

niiiiice.

we seem to have the best congress that money can buy.

does anyone know which vendors sell constitution toilet paper? I'd like to buy some rolls and mail them to my congressman. I doubt they'll get the message but it would be more productive than just typing your feelings into a letter they'll just 'bin' anyway.

Re:Standing (1)

MarkusQ (450076) | about 6 years ago | (#24172597)

The ACLU doesn't have standing to bring the case unless they have a plaintiff who can show that s/he's been the subject of an unConstitutional investigation,

We may have moved to a different level here. The fourth amendment says (in part):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Before, when such spying was illegal, a plaintiff needed to show that they had been spied on to prove standing, since otherwise nothing had overtly violated their rights since (absent any illegal action) their right to be secure against such actions was guaranteed by law..

But now the attack has moved to a bill passed into law by congress that in and of itself violates the right to be secure against unreasonable searches of every American. You should, at least in theory, be able to establish standing by simply showing that you are one of the broad class of people who might now be subject to unwarranted surveillance at some point, since by that very fact the bill has violated your right to be secure against such an eventuality.

--MarkusQ

I'm not so sure it works that way (2, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | about 6 years ago | (#24172853)

But now the attack has moved to a bill passed into law by congress that in and of itself violates the right to be secure against unreasonable searches of every American. You should, at least in theory, be able to establish standing by simply showing that you are one of the broad class of people who might now be subject to unwarranted surveillance at some point, since by that very fact the bill has violated your right to be secure against such an eventuality.

IANAL, of course -- but when has that stopped anyone on /.?

However, I recall that it's still necessary to have an "actual case or controversy" where the plaintiff has a redressable wrong. "Maybe" and "could" don't count. Of course, the ACLU could cite the Court's ruling in the Massachusetts greenhouse-gas case to establish standing on behalf of people not yet born, but I think that only applies where a government body is acting as plaintiff on their behalf.

Re:Standing (1)

christurkel (520220) | about 6 years ago | (#24172699)

And even if it reached the Supreme Court, it would be held up. Look at the make up of the current court.

This could backfire... (2)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 6 years ago | (#24172371)

If this winds up going to the Supreme Court over the Right to Privacy, it could give them an excuse to overturn Roe v. Wade.

We don't have a choice anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172387)

Leaders are guilty of nothing
They're perfectly insane
But if they'd point the finger at themselves
Who would be left to blame

Point the finger at yourself

There's no choice in freedom
There's no voice in freedom
We don't have a choice
Anymore anyway

Freedom, buy in
Freedom, sell out
Freedom, betray
Freedom, lay down
Freedom, corrupt
Freedom, opinion
Freedom, give up
Freedom, give in

Inconsistency (3, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | about 6 years ago | (#24172475)

People have been trading freedom for security for decades now - whether it's in the form of expanded FISA powers, or in the form of restrictive gun control, Social Security, etc. People set up the slippery slope whenever they decided that the Constitution should be ignored for their benefit, and now we all pay the price.

Suicide bombers aren't concerned with (0)

Brian Stretch (5304) | about 6 years ago | (#24172491)

being prosecuted after the fact.

The criminal justice system is woefully inadequate for dealing with military issues, much less with illegal enemy combatants (no uniforms, clear chain of command, prefers to attack civilian targets, etc). To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane. The executive branch sets and is held accountable for military policy. If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab. We're headed for judicial dictatorship if the ACLU has their way.

I'm starting to see how Constantinople fell [wikipedia.org] .

Maybe that is 110% true. (5, Insightful)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 6 years ago | (#24172543)

Just because something makes sense doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can't make an end run around the Constitution. Don't like the way the Constitution prevents such and such? Amend the Constitution.

Re:Maybe that is 110% true. (3, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | about 6 years ago | (#24172637)

Just because something makes sense doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can't make an end run around the Constitution. Don't like the way the Constitution prevents such and such? Amend the Constitution.

It really depends on what the intent of the bill of rights is. In the case of search and seizure, there's some that would argue that the they were not trying to instill a right to privacy as much as they were trying to guard against the federal government repeating a popular tactic of the king, which was to send out his agents to disrupt people's lives by rummaging through people's stuff and periodically arrest them. The idea is, sometimes, yes, the government does have to disrupt people's lives by rummage through their stuff.

Now, the question is, does, a broad data mining and "hit" search constitute a disruption? You don't know if the government is searching you, right now, so does it disrupt you?

I mean, we have our data searched by the private sector all the time and quite honestly many of us on this board are getting paid to develop tools to gather and manage this data, and worse, in the early days, many of us built these big data farms thinking that it would be cool. Woops.

Re:Maybe that is 110% true. (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | about 6 years ago | (#24172793)

You don't know if the government is searching you, right now, so does it disrupt you?

Hell frickin yes.

People change their behavior when they know they're being watched. This is particularly true of people who hold unpopular opinions. If people know that their phone calls can be listened to at any time and "flagged", this has a chilling effect on discourse in the country. Said discourse is so important that it's protected by amendment one in the Constitution.

The protection guaranteed by the fourth amendment has been accepted for a very long time to require either a warrant for this kind of search. You can't just toss that out now because you feel like it.

Re:Suicide bombers aren't concerned with (1)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | about 6 years ago | (#24172615)

To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane.

What's so onerous about taking the notebook to a secret court and having a judge sign off on the wiretaps? While you may object to the fact that unelected judges can tell other parts of the government that they are breaking the law, our entire legal system is built on the idea that unelected judges interpret the law. Its worth noting that law enforcement and intelligence personnel are not elected either.

Re:Suicide bombers aren't concerned with (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 6 years ago | (#24172685)

Your trust in the leaders selected by the Glorious People is noted and appreciated, tovarisch.

I'm curious... (3, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | about 6 years ago | (#24172525)

I'm curious how many people here have read the legislation instead of reacting to sound bites on TV. I mean, it does increase protection over what has been afforded since 2007, and while not the ideal of increasing protection back to pre-2001 levels, it at least restores some freedom.

Re:I'm curious... (0, Offtopic)

wilhelm (5091) | about 6 years ago | (#24172691)

Protection from what, though?

There are no terrorists from whom we need protection. The odds against being killed by a terrorist are staggering; you're more likely to fall off a ladder and break your neck while changing that darn lightbulb in the bathroom that keeps going out.

All this "protection" is a big myth. We've had endless shouting here on slash about all the stupid security theatre that the TSA does at our airports, and I'm pretty sure we've all concluded that it's 100% BS. Moreover, that's a form of terror, and it's being inflicted on us by our leaders. The only terror group from whom we legitimately need protection, is those governmental thugs who think they can do whatever they please, for any or no reason at all, constitution be damned.

Re:I'm curious... (1)

gravesb (967413) | about 6 years ago | (#24172741)

Protection from wiretapping, not terrorists. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Re:I'm curious... (2, Insightful)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | about 6 years ago | (#24172711)

Freedoms are NOT to be restored, granted or removed. Many of the Freedoms they are discussing are our inalienable rights. THEY DO NOT control them. They do not grant them, and as such they cannot take them away. The Constitution is not an enumeration of our rights, but the government's limitations and recognition of the rights or the people.

Re:I'm curious... (1)

gravesb (967413) | about 6 years ago | (#24172759)

I wasn't making a normative claim. Besides, perfect is the enemy of the good. I'd rather have this than an absence of legislation. This restores some of the freedoms lost, and as long as people don't become complacent, then it can be seen as a first step, not a destination.

But what is "terrorism", really? (2, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#24172557)

We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means. But is there a legal definition of "terrorism" already? Something that clearly defines what a terrorist is, and under which someone can be charged for being terrorist?

We have clear definitions of "rape", what has to be done to make an indecent assault become "rape". We are quite clear what is "indecent assault". Murder, in all it's gradations from criminal negligence causing death to first degree premeditated murder, it is clear. We know what someone has to do to become murderer. Or rapist. Or thief.

But what does someone really have to do to become a terrorist? Be scary? Then everyone celebrating Halloween may be a terrorist. Being foreigner, and having ideas that oppose the American culture? Can't be enough to be a criminal.

It is really high time to define: what is a terrorist. Then, and only then, we can make this kind of laws actually work, without all kinds of unintended(?) side effects. Then also the risk of being thrown in jail just for being "a terrorist" without clear accusations can go. And of course, only when we define "terrorist" we can accuse people of actually being one, and judge them accordingly.

It has nothing to do with terrorism [China] (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | about 6 years ago | (#24172673)

We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means

This bill has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with saying whether or not the USA can spy on people in other countries who may be talking to people in ours. Right now, this is in the cause of "fighting terrorism", but it could just as easily be used against drug trafficking, counter intelligence, quite literally, all the stuff the CIA/FBI does.

Has anyone ever thought how much the government might be interested in monitoring the communications of people from China back to their homeland? The Chinese government essentially data mines all this stuff to get an aggregate picture of how the USA works, and I think we'd like to know what picture that they see.

Re:It has nothing to do with terrorism [China] (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#24172763)

We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means

This bill has nothing to do with terrorism.

Of course, I know that. The bill itself at least. The word however made the summary here on /., so that is how close the bill is related to terrorism. It is what is used to push it through, and to silence opponents. Just like the "think of the children" argument, it is like that.

In time of war (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 years ago | (#24172599)

The rules change. The last i heard we are officially at war. ( and unfortunately will be for the foreseeable future ) During war, the federal government could even suspend the entire constitution and declare martial law, if they wanted/dare.

Not that i agree with doing it, but its an option that could make all this 'rights' stuff moot.

Re:In time of war (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172903)

We are *NOT* officially at war. Congress has authorized the use of force, but stopped far short of declaring war.

For the folks at the pointy end of things, the difference is purely semantic. For the folks in Washington, the difference is wider than the US of A.

Congress does not like declaring war, exactly because of the powers that such a declaration grants to the President.

Re:In time of war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172909)

The last i heard we are officially at war.

Huh? With what? A tactic used in asymmetrical violent conflicts?

Maybe you think that the USA is officially at war with "Al Qaeda". It would create all kinds of problems if the USA was.

First, from an aesthetic perspective, it's not clear that the USA wants to grant Al Qaeda the status that would come from an official declaration of war.

Second, and much more fundamentally, the most basic idea of war is that both sides can kill each other without being punished later. Doesn't matter if you kill a thousand people with you bare hands in order to spread fascism as a member of Hitler's army. At the end of the day, you get to go home and live out your life as if nothing ever happened.

Of course, there are some rules about who you can kill and how you can do it and still have it all be OK under the "laws and customs of war". The thing is, under modern international law, these rules are quite minor.

So the question the USA has to ask itself is: does it want to let Al Qaeda kill Americans and not face punishment? Because that's what it would mean to be officially at war with Al Qaeda.

catch-22 (0, Troll)

moracity (925736) | about 6 years ago | (#24172611)

The government can't win for losing in this situation. Either they are impeding on perceived Constitutional protections or it fails in its Constitutional directive to protect its citizens. Which one takes precedence? I don't see any way for a compromise that can accomplish both.

As far as I know, there is no Constitutional right to privacy. The government, however, is specifically directed to protect its citizens. Courts are already spitting on the the second amendment. It says in black and white that citizens can bear arms. Period. It is not up for "interpretation". Where is the ACLU here?

If you read the Constitution, you can see that it was written in such a way that there is no need for interpretation. It was written in lay terms for the time so that everyone could understand it. Believe it or not, it actually means what it says. It's a very simple document that creates the government, sets out the responsibilities of the government and limits the power of the government it created.

I don't understand people who want to limit the ability of the government to protect us. Was the lack of communication between local police, the FBI, and CIA during the Clinton years, which led to 9/11, not a big enough eye opener?

The ACLU is a private enterprise with its own agenda and does not care about the safety of U.S citizens. It's no different than "big oil" or "big business" that it is so fond of going after. The only difference is that "big business" is after money and the ACLU and its ilk is after power and control. It, along with environmental groups, is a mouthpiece for socialist movement in the U.S. The ACLU was not elected by the people and does not represent the people. It has no respect for the Constitution, but relies on it when politically expedient.

Re:catch-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24172683)

Bad argument regarding 9/11 seeing as they partially knew beforehand.

Re:catch-22 (1)

wellingj (1030460) | about 6 years ago | (#24172877)

Have you read the Constitution or is your reading comprehension just at a 3rd grade level?
The 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here is your homework assignment: Compare and contrast with the ACLU's Statement.

The law challenged here supplies none of the safeguards that the Constitution demands. It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents without identifying the people to be surveilled; without specifying the facilities, places, premises, or property to be monitored; without observing meaningful limitations on the retention, analysis, and dissemination of acquired information; without obtaining individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; and, indeed, without even making prior administrative determinations that the targets of surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism.

Next, start trying to understand the principles behind the 4th Amendment [wikipedia.org] .

Toast one to the Supreme Court's health (1)

smchris (464899) | about 6 years ago | (#24172709)

5-4 vote is the only thing that'll preserve that bit of our constitution and freedoms.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>