×

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!

Judge Denies Administration Request To Delay ACLU Metadata Lawsuit

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the let-the-battle-begin dept.

Government 107

sl4shd0rk writes "Federal Judge William Pauley has dismissed an Obama Administration request to delay a hearing on Verizon/NSA data sifting. The ACLU has argued that the sifting is not authorized by statute and even if it were it would still be unconstitutional. The Obama Administration requested the delay on the grounds it needed more time to search through its classified material to determine what was suitable for disclosure." See also the case docket. Motions must be filed by August 26th, and oral arguments begin on November 1st.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

107 comments

Eagle, burger, tits, guns, oil, freedom, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393407)

'Murica!

Re:Eagle, burger, tits, guns, oil, freedom, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393477)

I'm pretty sure this' actually very accurate.

That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393411)

this first fucking post

First Post for Jesus! Let Him into your heart, Slashdotters.

WWJD

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393463)

You were saying?

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393649)

http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/49241.jpg

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393589)

this first fucking post

First Post for Jesus! Let Him into your heart, Slashdotters.

WWJD

What does that mean?

I see that all the time "Believe in Jesus!"

"Let him in your heart!"

etc ....

There is no evidence that Jesus even existed. There is no evidence for God or any god or gods. Aside from the names of cities, the Bible has no evidence for its stories. It's a Fairy Tale..

I stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny when I was around 7 years of age.

When I asked my dear kind priest (fuck you! to whoever insinuates he molested me!) about this, and he just said it's "Faith". Faith is belief without evidence. BTWI have none.

And as one physicists pointed out (can't remember for cites) and to paraphrase, "By this time there SHOULD be evidence for the existence of God. Since there isn't, then that's 'proof' God doesn't exist."

I see Michael Shermer's argument that being atheist is just as dogmatic as "knowing" God exists. But does anyone say the same thing about not believing in Zeus or the Tooth Fairy? By his reasoning, I am being dogmatic about NOT believing in the Tooth Fairy. She COULD exist because there's no proof - and I wish because I think she's hot and I want to do a fairy!

Wait, wait, not the 'fairy' part - nohomo - just the hot chick with wings - wait, not hot wings bu t a HOT CHICK with Wings...OK?

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0, Offtopic)

swan5566 (1771176) | about 9 months ago | (#44393769)

There is no evidence that Jesus even existed.

Using this same historical burden of proof, you must also say that most other historical figures have no evidence of existence either. Otherwise you're trying to have it both ways.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0, Offtopic)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 9 months ago | (#44393859)

That's not true at all. Historical figures are usually corroborated by other societies they came in contact with. Otherwise anything "known" about them is taken with a grain of salt.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (-1, Flamebait)

swan5566 (1771176) | about 9 months ago | (#44394373)

I would encourage you to do a little research on this subject - this has been looked at quite extensively, where the details of this claim is broken down and presuppositions and double-standards of historicity are examined.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (2, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#44394473)

It's true that the vast majority of people that lived in ancient times lived and died in obscurity.

It's not true, however, that the Jesus of the fables was just another regular Joe that we would expect no one outside of his circle of followers to have taken notice of. Plenty of people that would have been less famous even then were nonetheless mentioned in some surviving document written by a contemporary. It seems awfully strange that a man who did signs and wonders, who astounded and confounded the wise and powerful, who fed multitudes in a miraculous fashion and so forth and so on, wouldnt show up as such in the historial record until roughly a century after his death.

By itself this is not conclusive either way, but it certainly doesnt strengthen the case for a historical Jesus. Not by itself.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0)

swan5566 (1771176) | about 9 months ago | (#44394619)

This is heading into a very long historical debate. Just a cursory glance at wikipedia would have a good starting point for information.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44398819)

Way ahead of you.

Anyway that approach cant prove anything by itself. Reading the texts, both the Tanakh and the New Testament, can. The New Testament is the key to this, If the Gospels arent reliable then other arguments about the historical existence are pretty much moot, and those same Gospels are demonstrably unreliable.

The Gospels reveal in several instances not just lack of understanding of the Tanakh, but complete misunderstanding. (For example all the Virgin Birth stuff is a midrash of a *mistranslation* of Isaiah - one of several mistakes indicating clearly that these Evangelists knew only Greek language, and the flawed Greek language translation of the Tanakh, the Septuagint.)

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0)

Dunbal (464142) | about 9 months ago | (#44394607)

I'm pretty sure Hercules never existed. I'm also pretty sure there were no flying horses or gorgons, etc. The problem with your argument is that it makes no distinction between actual history and legend. If we talk about Plato, a guy who supposedly went around writing books and teaching philosophy, that is quite believable. When we talk about a guy who could perform miracles, raise the dead, and was the one and only son of "the almighty", well, I put him in the same category as other MYTHS AND LEGENDS. The legend is real, no arguments there.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | about 9 months ago | (#44394943)

But you just exposed your bias in this, which has nothing to do with historical record. Any amount of evidence wouldn't sway you, because you've already made your mind up. You should look up the dynamics of how historians differentiate history and myth on this subject.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44395749)

But you just exposed your bias in this, which has nothing to do with historical record. Any amount of evidence wouldn't sway you, because you've already made your mind up. You should look up the dynamics of how historians differentiate history and myth on this subject.

Yeah, once you do that, you see that it was all the will of Thor, Loki, FSM and of course, Hercules, who held the bottomost turtle on his shoulders while Atlas shrugged...

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44398565)

Nice try, but there's no bottommost turtle. It's turtles all the way down!

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 9 months ago | (#44396131)

There's no bias. Believing in Jesus is like believing in King Arthur, Beowulf, Llugh Lámhfhada, Da Yu, Krishna or Paul Bunyan.

The basis for non-belief is that the things they are said to have done are preposterous.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 9 months ago | (#44396263)

Not biased, merely pointing out that your conclusion "there is documentation so he existed" is not necessarily true. It's not about bias it's about critical thinking. Jesus said he would come back before the next generation was over - well he's a little late, see. The logical conclusion, instead of making crap up to justify the existence of a magical being, is to assume that people made up the magical stuff.

Re:That may be true, but the judge couldn't delay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44394565)

What would Jesus do? On slashdot? Not much on account of being unable to use his hands. I doubt his daddy is going to do the scrolling typing thing for him.

its about time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393413)

that we renditioned the court. USA USA USA

Well that's it then. (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#44393479)

In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.

It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.

Re:Well that's it then. (1)

zzottt (629458) | about 9 months ago | (#44393757)

wow those are big words, at first I thought you just put up some techno-babble but its not and for that I salute you sir!

Wait... those are real? (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 9 months ago | (#44394171)

In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.

It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.

Okay, I was aware of "axolotl", but veeblefetzers [wikipedia.org] and potrzebies [wikipedia.org] surprised me. Wikipedia pages and all!

You can even ask google to convert "1 potrzebie" to metric [google.com].

+1 internets to you, sir!

(This is going into my WTF? that's real? list, alongside "Legends of Nascar" commemorative plates [ebay.com].)

Re:Wait... those are real? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#44394429)

In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.

It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.

Okay, I was aware of "axolotl", but veeblefetzers [wikipedia.org] and potrzebies [wikipedia.org] surprised me. Wikipedia pages and all!

You can even ask google to convert "1 potrzebie" to metric [google.com].

+1 internets to you, sir!

(This is going into my WTF? that's real? list, alongside "Legends of Nascar" commemorative plates [ebay.com].)

Both Donald Knuth and I are massive fans of the old Mad Magazine. This seems to be a Potrzebie Friday, if ever there was one. I'm building an inventory system and test data are Veeblefetzers, Potrzebies and Axolotls. For further research I may have to fish out my copy of Gasoline Valley.

This is all rather off-topic, but the spirit of the OP was to obfuscate in event anyone is (ha!) monitoring us.

Re:Well that's it then. (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | about 9 months ago | (#44394257)

Care to join my 43-man Squamish team? We're short an Overblat.

Re:Well that's it then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44398637)

It conflicts with my Shirling schedule.

Good job, your honor! (4, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#44393481)

Now if we could just get the wheels of justice to turn quicker on this one. Every day this is delayed is potentially one more day before this nonsense is put to an end.

Though realistically, the NSA will keep doing it and just try harder to hide it. It's quite clear they operate outside of any actual level of control.

Re:Good job, your honor! (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#44393517)

Now if we could just get the wheels of justice to turn quicker on this one. Every day this is delayed is potentially one more day before this nonsense is put to an end.

Though realistically, the NSA will keep doing it and just try harder to hide it. It's quite clear they operate outside of any actual level of control.

They're probably already surfing the US Constitution, Bill 'o Rights and Magna Cum Arta for a loop de loop they can fly the next monitoring thing through. And both parties may wring their hands and wibble in public, but behind the closed doors they're all in bed together, watching us on their big screen TV and avin' a larf.

Re:Good job, your honor! (5, Informative)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#44393823)

The Administration and NSA didn't care about the constitution before Snowden, they're not going to start now.

Re:Good job, your honor! (1, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44394055)

Thats what the 2nd is for.

Re:Good job, your honor! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44394285)

Thats what the 2nd is for.

Drones incoming in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1

Oh, how cute. You thought that you'd be backed up by defecting members of the armed forces who put their country's ideals ahead of their military oaths. So far we've seen what, 6 of them?

Re:Good job, your honor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44395285)

"military oaths"

Let me think ... ahh defend the constitution of the US of A from all
enemies foreign and domestic.

OK I got it. Now what was it these guys did again?

Re:Good job, your honor! (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 9 months ago | (#44395481)

Oh, how cute. You thought that you'd be backed up by defecting members of the armed forces who put their country's ideals ahead of their military oaths.

Oh look, a /. AC who knows less about military oaths than a foreigner does. How sad, bet you don't know that the oathkeepers are exceptionally wide-spread in the US military as well.

Re:Good job, your honor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44397901)

We don't know, because none have come forth about the anticonstitutional programs they are involved in.

Obligatory sarcasm (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#44394321)

Wait, you mean it's not so we can go hunting?

Re:Obligatory sarcasm (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 9 months ago | (#44394509)

No, the second amendment does not secure your right to hunt ducks or deer.

It does secure your right to hunt congressmen should there be an open season for them.

Re:Obligatory sarcasm (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#44394843)

Minor verbiage nitpick here. It's not a "right" to hunt them which this protects. It's the right to properly equip yourself to do so in case it becomes necessary. You're absolutely right about that reason though in spirit.

Re:Obligatory sarcasm (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 9 months ago | (#44394851)

No, the second amendment does not secure your right to hunt ducks or deer.

It does secure your right to hunt congressmen should there be an open season for them.

I think the 2A should secure a perimeter around the Capitol Visitor Center long enough for a few dozen cement trucks to dump their cement down the secret elevator and ventilation shafts going down to the classified FISA court facilities located under the Capitol Visitor Center and persist until the bubbles stop. Rinse & repeat for NSA domestic data storage facilities.

Publicly posting all available personal data of judges and their families that serve on the FISA court might also serve to reverse this STASI-like system of secret courts and secret laws. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let's see how they like having the intimate details of their and their families' lives exposed.

Strat

Re:Obligatory sarcasm (2)

Proteus (1926) | about 9 months ago | (#44395369)

Publicly posting all available personal data of judges and their families that serve on the FISA court might also serve to reverse this STASI-like system of secret courts and secret laws.

If only that would work. Unfortunately, when you show people in power that they're vulnerable too, they don't see the light and act for change -- they double-down. They decide that such acts are evidence that they need even more power.

Re:Obligatory sarcasm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44396799)

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant"

Edward Teller's sunshine, it's a boy.

It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393555)

Unless it's Dick Cheney's.

I mean, it's got to be Republican's fault that Detroit went bankrupt, right? Even though no Republican has held office in that city for half a fucking century.

Ergo, since Boooosh! and Cheney were still in office less than five years ago, everything bad that happens to Obama must be their fault, right?

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44393613)

Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393707)

Sure some laws are terribly written. But look at Obama and how he see the laws that are not terribly written. The the US Constitution, Bill 'o Rights and Magna Cum Arta have all turned in to what he wipes with.

Re: It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#44393731)

Now if we could just do something about these voters who keep letting in president s...

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393875)

Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.

BULLSHIT

Obama has NO problem violating the law when he wants to.

Delay implementing Obamacare despite what the law says? No problem.

Stop deporting illegal aliens despite what the law says? No problem.

Continue monitoring US citizens despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.

Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.

Law? Yeah. Obama cares so fucking much about the law he conducts "extrajudicial killings" of US citizens.

Don't post crap that Obama's just following the law when it's obvious the law means NOTHING to Obama. You just want to excuse Obama for doing things you probably excoriated Bush for.

Double standard much?

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44394231)

Very angry.
Oh an expert on the laws Obama has broken, eh. Care to cite which laws, which clauses? Or are we not actually a lawyer, just very angry?

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44397219)

Well, the ACA's right there with the implimentation dates in it, so that's one.

Then there're the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments to the constitution, which are violated by all the Guantanimo stuff...and the extrajudicial killings thing fits into a few of those too.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44412035)

Uh huh, so nothing specific at all. Just your impression of what you think the law says, and your interpretation of the constitution that is, notably, not backed up by the court system. What we have sucks but your feigned outrage directed at highly unspecific claims just makes you look stupid.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44394275)

>Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.
Blame congress. They passed a law that wouldn't allow him the funds to move the prisoners to US soil.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#44394661)

>Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.
Blame congress. They passed a law that wouldn't allow him the funds to move the prisoners to US soil.

how about blame canada? you know money isn't the real problem(it's not cheap to keep them there) - it's the conditions and legal trickery dead end route they took that's the problem.

not money.

besides he can executive order all kinds of funky shit when he feels like it.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44395053)

Thank you!!!

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 9 months ago | (#44396415)

Regarding deportations, you should actually check the numbers on that. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/ [politifact.com]
"...If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents."

Obama hasn't stopped deporting undocumented immigrants; he's deporting a minimum of 50% more than Bush who deported 100% more than Clinton...Never in the history of this "melting pot" have we tried so hard to keep others out.

Not that I'm defending Obama -- in fact, this is one of many broken promises that I *despise* him for. Not the biggest -- that'd be his war of terror and police state tactics -- but definitely up there.

No borders; no nations!

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#44394077)

Wow... fanboy much? If either of you still think there's any difference between Obama and Bush then YOU are the problem. Stop voting Democrat/Republican. They are the same party at this point.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44394189)

Oh, fun, the person who assumes I never vote third party, and that "both" sides are equally bad. Congratulations on your truly stupendous level of cynicism that also achieves nothing. We're all very impressed.

Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it, in a broken winner-take-all system encoded into a constitution written prior to the invention of game theory.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about 9 months ago | (#44395397)

Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it

I also vote third party. And considering that *this* is what you have to show for voting for the D/RNC, I'm much more proud of having "nothing" to show for it. My nothing is better than your this.

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 9 months ago | (#44395653)

Ditto! Ya know, anyone even bothering to still argue "the difference" point has to be totally effing insane!

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fau (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 9 months ago | (#44396035)

Well said, here's a couple of pennies.

The elephants and the donkeys are different on many minor issues (abortion, gay marriage - No offense to those concerned about such topics - I'm pro for both,the debate is a control mechanism. They are minor compared to what comes next). They differ a bit on some important issues such as immigration and energy.

But, when it comes to major issues such as overall economy, the financial industry, and the military-industrial complex, they are the same. And that is where it matters, . Both parties support more debt, bail out banks (too big to fail the rich...), let the Fed run amok with trillions to spend, and both parties are pro-war (wars support a lot of jobs),

The major issues are the ones that matter. Most everything else results in an ethical argument, such topics are immune from true debate and are subject to the Supreme Court Members.

The Amash amendement vote to defund NSA domestic phone spying was very interesting. 54% of the voting Democrats voted for it, even though Obama was adamant about failing it. 62% of republicans voted against it. I had lunch with a Constitutional scholar friend of mine the day after the vote, he said the Republicans should have supported it, they are the party most in distress (all thanks to Bush 2). That the Democrats would turn against the President on the topic is amazing, if they had had Republican support they would have had veto level power. And seriously, is the President going to veto a DOD appropriations bill (nope).

If the Republicans had shown some backbone there's a good chance actual progress regarding our rights could occur.

I hope other members of the US government will be emboldened by the vote results and submit more divisive privacy amendments and bills.

Think about it. The new political parties would be Pro-Privacy/Liberty against Spying Incorporated. The other issues melt away.

Please let this continue, and thank goodness for Snowden, this debate would have never occurred without his information releases. And get involved, this is a moment where actual change could occur.

Who the FUCK will vote for someone who is willing to constantly spy on him/her? SHEEP (party members, the one eyed man is running)!!!! And in that world, I would be a vegetarian wolf... .

Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fau (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 9 months ago | (#44396429)

EXACTLY! The parties only want one thing -- power. So they pick these issues that wouldn't give them any real additional power either way, take opposite sides on those, frame that as the entire debate, and throw us all in prison while we're not looking.

It takes time and diligence (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393563)

to weave a web of lies that can't be demolished beyond reasonable doubt in the time frame of a court case.

Of course, it becomes easier when you can claim secrecy whenever the questions run close to a hole in the fabrication.

Pray to FSM (2, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 9 months ago | (#44393593)

Let's all pray to the FSM for this judges' health, lest he come down with a terminal case of Hastings.

Re:Pray to FSM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44394557)

Every time someone abbreviates Flying Spaghetti Monster, and particularly when someone does it on /., I think they are talking about Finite State Machines.

Re:Pray to FSM (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 9 months ago | (#44395201)

Every time someone abbreviates Flying Spaghetti Monster, and particularly when someone does it on /., I think they are talking about Finite State Machines.

His noodle is strong in this one.

it's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393601)

Should be "its" rather than "it's" in the summary.

The following mistake is intentional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393689)

For a typical posting on Slashdot, thats pretty good!

Mills Lane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393629)

Motions must be filed by August 26th, and oral arguments begin on November 1st.

*CLANG* *CLANG* LET'S GET IT ON!

The Constitution is clear on this (5, Informative)

WCMI92 (592436) | about 9 months ago | (#44393639)

Government has to get a warrant in an OPEN COURT. It has to describe SPECIFICALLY the person or things to be searched and seized. Government has no rights, the People have ALL rights. Government has no more authority to collect everyone's e-mails than it does to send a black van down each street, pull the mail from everyone's mailbox and photocopy it...

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.

I don't see any "Because TERRORISTS!", or "Because Someone doesn't like Obama" exceptions in there, do you?

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 9 months ago | (#44393735)

Hear, Hear!

Unfortunately, judges who will enforce the constitution are few and far between. Every sitting member of the supreme court has already failed to do so on multiple occasions.

-jcr

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (0)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 9 months ago | (#44393813)

Perhaps we could flush out that statment with some foot notes. *IMHO **IMHO ***IANAL [Citation Needed]

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (4, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44394135)

The Constitution was intended to be interpreted by the lay public. You dont have to be a lawyer to understand law and governance. Democracy means WE are the government. Having educated people point out the finer points of law is fine, but any layman can see the decisions the Supremes have made in regard to corporate citizenship, the commerce clause and FISA courts are very much opposed to the Constitution.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

jcr (53032) | about 9 months ago | (#44395891)

Or you could just quit pussyfooting around and admit it.

-jcr

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (5, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | about 9 months ago | (#44393895)

Unfortunately, judges who will enforce the constitution are few and far between. Every sitting member of the supreme court has already failed to do so on multiple occasions.

It's way past time for Americans to stop allowing judges to have the kind of absolute power they have right now. It's also way past time for Americans to accept by default orders handed down by government in general.

The Federal Government doesn't have rights. It has enumerated POWERS. The Constitution is written as such that they have those powers (plus extra ones amended in) and no more. If we want to put a stop to what the NSA and this unlawful Regime in DC are doing to us we need to INSIST that the government restrict itself to those enumerated powers.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 9 months ago | (#44394381)

You mean, to police the border? Because, in case you don't know it, this is the only power that the federal government is empowered to have. And a few more but only in case of war.....Ahhhh now i see, why USA is always in war (here i wakeup from the matrix, and the drones come and purge my memory)...
What did you say? Something about Niki Minaj? Yeee, i like her....vista :D

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

jcr (53032) | about 9 months ago | (#44395895)

this is the only power that the federal government is empowered to have.

No, there are 17 enumerated powers in the constitution.

-jcr

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399023)

The Federal Government doesn't have rights. It has enumerated POWERS. The Constitution is written as such that they have those powers (plus extra ones amended in) and no more. If we want to put a stop to what the NSA and this unlawful Regime in DC are doing to us we need to INSIST that the government restrict itself to those enumerated powers.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Seriously, you don't think "fighting terrorist" falls under this clause? Nutjob. It's fair to argue they've gone far beyond what's needed to fight terrorism, but you can't ague that federal government can't go after terrorist. Really. That's a non-starter.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44393885)

So then... you are saying that digital information can be considered as physical, personal property?

And copying of said information constitues as search and seizure?

I guess that would make the RIAA's argument that copying is the equivalent of stealing true huh?

I'm sure our fore-fathers anticipated technological changes over the course of the next several centuries and took it into account when they wrote this document.

I guess we can continue to hang onto this 200 year old document and spout it as the clear and true gosepel though.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 9 months ago | (#44393975)

I guess we can continue to hang onto this 200 year old document and spout it as the clear and true gosepel though.

Indeed. The government should just ignore any part it doesn't like, because it's clearly 'outdated'.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (2)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | about 9 months ago | (#44394059)

Digital information/goods easily fit into the "effects" part of the protection. They went out of their way to enumerate just about everything that existed that could be searched or seized so I have no problem envisioning their original intent would of included emails, phone locations, etc. if they existed at the time. Not only that but I can envision them going, "DUH!", at how obvious this should be.

The founders believed freedom was more important than individual life, so, yes, I believe they would stand by those convictions even in today's super scary environment.

If the people believe the 200 year old document is out-of-date, there is a mechanism to change it and it's called a constitutional amendment. Sure, they are hard to pass because most people have to agree on them but that's by design. If you want to redefine and limit the fourth amendment, that is the only legal/constitutional course you could take. Everything else that has been done that conflicts with this amendment is illegal.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 9 months ago | (#44394413)

Actually, there is only one way to invalidate the 4th, 5th, 1st, and whatever amendment you like not: Drop Magna Carta and invent new constitution.
Anything else is unconstitutional, hence invalid.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#44394249)

So then... you are saying that digital information can be considered as physical, personal property?

No, but some information about us as citizens has been determined as being private. Would the founders have objected to England opening your mail, making copies of the contents and then sending the original on to it's destination? Of course they would have.

And copying of said information constitues as search and seizure?

It does indeed. See above example.

I guess that would make the RIAA's argument that copying is the equivalent of stealing true huh?

Steeling is not an illegal search. Someone copying digital files that are ALREADY PUBLIC is not garnering any private information about the content owner. These are 2 completely separate subjects. I think that even those that think Piracy of movies and music is fine would object to someone hacking the same companies servers and publishing the health records of all their employees.

I'm sure our fore-fathers anticipated technological changes over the course of the next several centuries and took it into account when they wrote this document.

They did not, and they didn't need to. Our for-fathers understood human nature, which hasn't changed in thousands of years. The encroachment of tyranny on the civil liberties of the people always comes with he promise of protection from some new insidious threat. But rarely are the threats new. People have been blowing up buildings, shooting up schools, committing mail fraud and axe murders since the dawn of this country. None of this is new except our media exposure to it.

I guess we can continue to hang onto this 200 year old document and spout it as the clear and true gosepel though.

If wisdom prevails, we certainly will.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44395585)

So then... you are saying that digital information can be considered as physical, personal property?

No, but some information about us as citizens has been determined as being private. Would the founders have objected to England opening your mail, making copies of the contents and then sending the original on to it's destination? Of course they would have.

Except collection of meta-data would be about the equivalent of the post office scaning in your mail's recipient and sender information. Which it does anyway. That information is retained for some period after the mail has been delivered.

And copying of said information constitues as search and seizure?

It does indeed. See above example.

Got it. When a network switch of your ISP buffers any amount of data for any period, it also constitutes as search and seizure.

I guess that would make the RIAA's argument that copying is the equivalent of stealing true huh?

Steeling is not an illegal search. Someone copying digital files that are ALREADY PUBLIC is not garnering any private information about the content owner. These are 2 completely separate subjects. I think that even those that think Piracy of movies and music is fine would object to someone hacking the same companies servers and publishing the health records of all their employees.

I was not refering to anything regarding the content of the information, but the information itself. Effects by it's classical definition refers to movable property/goods. Seizure by it's classical definition means to forcefully capture something by use of power. If you capture something, then you are depriving an individual of what has been captured. So if copying information can be constituted as seizure then it would make the RIAAs argument that copying is equivalent of theft since you are somehow depriving someone of something by the sole act of copying.

I'm sure our fore-fathers anticipated technological changes over the course of the next several centuries and took it into account when they wrote this document.

They did not, and they didn't need to. Our for-fathers understood human nature, which hasn't changed in thousands of years. The encroachment of tyranny on the civil liberties of the people always comes with he promise of protection from some new insidious threat. But rarely are the threats new. People have been blowing up buildings, shooting up schools, committing mail fraud and axe murders since the dawn of this country. None of this is new except our media exposure to it.

I guess we can continue to hang onto this 200 year old document and spout it as the clear and true gosepel though.

If wisdom prevails, we certainly will.

Except the constitution is not clear (enough). While it's true that people have been blowing up buildings etc.. , technology has given each individual more power to cause more damage/harm than 200 years ago. I doubt a person with a musket could kill 20 or so school children or that one of the first creations by the Wright brothers could bring down a 100+ story structure made of cement and steel. If wisdom truly does prevail, people will learn that the world has changed within the last couple hundred years and that clinging to ideals without compromise is silly.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44395095)

So then... you are saying that digital information can be considered as physical, personal property?

And copying of said information constitues as search and seizure?

Seizure no (since it is still available afterwards), search most certainly.

"Secure in their papers" is different from "secure of their papers": this is clearly talking about the government getting access rather than full physical possession.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

Grey Geezer (2699315) | about 9 months ago | (#44394191)

I think there is a mechanism to allow Government to do this. Doesn't Martial Law need to be declared or something? Constitutional rights can be ignored in the case of National Emergency but Obama, or maybe it's the Congress, has to authorise it in that context...I think... Any constitutional scholars out there who can confirm this?

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (2)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#44394383)

There is no provision in the US Constitution for Martial Law - a most inconvenient fact for those who wish to wield that power. As a result, they have traditionally taken to citing I:9, which does permit Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus in case of "rebellion or invasion." Since suspending Habeas Corpus and imposing Martial Law are kind of related it has been cited in this context.

The only case law on it I can recall is ex Parte Milligan, where the Supreme Court rationalised a power to declare martial law, yet still ruled that it was inherently unconstitutional to do so in any area where legitimate civilian courts were open and functioning, and therefore ruled against the government anyway. By that precedent I think Congress would have to declare it, and it would only be valid in areas where the civilian courts and authority had already been destroyed or rendered inoperable in one way or another, and only as long as there was a rebellion or invasion in progress as well.

Synopsis from memory, do your own research etc.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (1)

Grey Geezer (2699315) | about 9 months ago | (#44394501)

Yeah, my memory of Martial Law was from High School History/U.S. Gov. classes...I think the teacher discussed it in the context of Lincoln, during the Civil War. but High School was a very long time ago, and memory ain't what it used to be.....

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 9 months ago | (#44394243)

"Because Someone doesn't like Obama" isn't the exception that the executive branch wants. The exception is "Because Someone Opposes or Embarrasses the FBI, CIA, DoD, and/or NSA".

It's easy to find people who absolutely hate Obama who the government has left alone. For example, there is nobody searching the world trying to capture Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.

By contrast, look at what the US is willing to do to get Edward Snowden: Violate Bolivia's sovereignty, and threaten trade sanctions against several countries including Russia (in violation of numerous treaties). Or look at what the US was willing to do to try to stop Wikileaks: Senator Joe Lieberman was personally involved in cajoling financial companies to refuse to send money to Wikileaks with no legal justification whatsoever.

Re:The Constitution is clear on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44396577)

The law is also quite clear, those in power just choose to ignore it.

There were so many wiretapping abuses by Hoover and Johnson in the 60's that the Supreme Court finally outlawed the practice in 1967 Katz v. United States. Nixon (of course) ignored the ruling and continued the abuses, til 1974 when Congress issued articles of impeachment against him, in part for authorizing illegal wiretaps during his cover up of Watergate. But of course it's business as usual and the abuses continued unabated. In 1975 the Church committee begins investigation of the CIA's and FBI's many illegal wiretaps placed on antiwar and civil-rights leaders, labor union leaders, student groups, newsmen, White House staffers and U.S. Congressmen. In 1978 Congress passes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was supposed to put even more restrictions on government wiretapping (which, somehow, become the law that the government claims gives them permission to wiretap at will). In 2001 Congress passes the (so called) Patriot Act which streamlines the process to obtaining warrants through the use of "secret", non-judicial, rubber-stamping courts. And in 2002 George W, tired of the government continually getting caught with it's hands in the data jar, authorizes unrestricted government surveillance without warrants on his personal authority as U.S. President.

So we see that the government has a L O N G history of passing laws, ignoring those laws, getting caught, lying about it, passing more laws, getting caught again, etc. Until finally, like all totalitarian regimes, they simply legalized the practice "because WE say so." And Obama continues the tradition of abuse and lies.

Star Chamber Nation (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 9 months ago | (#44394597)

To be fair, I'm not sure this federal judge could have made any other ruling, knowing as he does that there is a secret court, with members chosen in secret by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and who do not have to face congressional approval, and that this secret court, which meets in secret in a $2.5billion dollar complex built UNDER the "visitor's center" in Washington DC, and whose power supersedes that of the actual Supreme Court, or Congress, or the President, and that that secret super-Court can probably (and probably have) just throw out his decision anyway if they don't like it.

The time for legal challenges to the police state passed about seven years ago. I'm pretty sure that at this point, the only way to stop this police state is the way police states usually get stopped, which has nothing to do with legal challenges.

 

How about ALL of it is suitable for disclosure (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 9 months ago | (#44394725)

If it ends up being the case that what they are doing is unconstitutional and illegal they don't deserve the right to keep it classified as it is engaging in illegal activity. Tired of reading the headlines daily and seeing stuff going on that if the average citizen took part in would land them in prison the rest of their days. Still to be determined if that is the case however but it seems pretty obvious.

ehem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44394857)

ITS classified material.

Racist Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44394973)

The only reason a judge would rule against the administration is because of racism.

Paper shredders aren't fast enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44395349)

There'll be "no open bid" appointed contracts 4 Halliburton to put turbo chargers on 'em + NOS kits (lmao) and? Yes, @ 100x their true cost to taxpayers to boot - you know, to "get the job done right" (meaning kickbacks to the politicians appointing the "good ole' boys" from Halliburton too while firing workers nationwide with downsizing & giving CEO's of their billionaire boys club backers BILLION DOLLAR bonuses bigger than entire companies' payrolls, topped off with some union busting, offshoring/outsourcing too with H1B VISAS to drive down possible local internal to US wages, along with tax breaks by placing 'corporate offices' (closets with a nameplate logo on them) offshore to avoid the taxes as usual whilst we as the citizenry take up the slack in our taxes vs. the corporate taxbase so the 1%'ers puppet masters get richer, including their wealthy puppet politicians too (when they don't like the rules since they cut into our profits? Hell, have a 'secret KANGAROO court' with our 'the best politicians money can really buy' pals, & just change 'em! Why? Because we CAN!)). What was Obama's campaign slogan again? Ah yes - "Yes, we (s)can (all your electronic communique, but not the NSA's!)". Yes... we SCAN!

Just three simple questions? (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 9 months ago | (#44395625)

Does anyone know who owns Verizon?

Does anyone know who owns AT&T?

Does anyone know if the same entity owns Verizon and AT&T?

Re:Just three simple questions? (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | about 9 months ago | (#44396285)

They are both majority-owned (like most big corporations) by "mutual fund & institutional investors", which is another way of saying "Wall Street". Since many of the big Wall Street banks and brokerages are *also* owned by the same funds and institutions, effectively they form one entity with a single purpose: profit at any cost.

Re:Just three simple questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399937)

Institutional investors is the way to avoid filing that SEC form which states who the actual majority investor really is. When tracing that monstrous circuit diagram of each institutional investor through the various holding companies, offshore trusts, etc., one arrives at the point that Verizon is owned by AT&T which is still owned by the Rockefeller family. sgt_doom

Re:Just three simple questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399953)

Sorry, forgot to add that this is the way the major banksters/corporations are owned, through (illegal) cross-stock ownership. sgt_doom

I just don't understand why we don't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44396491)

I just don't understand why we don't execute politicians and higher ups like we used to do over a hundred years ago? I mean that was the beauty behind revolutions back then. Drag them out kicking and screaming to the public square hang or behead them to show a clear-cut message to the rest of them out there.

Thanks man. (2)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 9 months ago | (#44396899)

Thanks judge person. America owes you a solid.

It is not cool that the Obama administration seeks to NOT have this conversation in public and with the public. This is a completely necessary conversation to have so we can all come to an agreement through the ancient device shared of understanding , which is pretty much the way free societies are held together .

It bothers me that a scholar of the Constitution , a highly intelligent guy and someone who additionally had the advantage of access to the best university, the best professors, the best curricula in the most developed nation at the most enlightened time in history doesn't get this and act upon it.

I understood when Bush was in office because what do you expect from an alcoholic guy who basically fell upwards his entire life and arrived at what age 50? with such poorly developed acumen of other people's character that he selected a sociopath for VP.

But with Obama it's clearly a case of to whom much is given, much is expected and he's failing by that measure far worse than Bush.

Where does that leave us in terms of hope for the future? It seems like these guys get into office and the financial gurus/charlatans like Greenspan and the operators in the establishment organizations like the CIA and the NSA are more than a match for them in terms of overwhelming them with specialized knowledge in domains the President is basically ignorant of. They have such a well developed - if inaccurate- POV that the President can't counter it and is basically led to say "OK, whatever you specialist think is best....". What else are you going to say when very large and complex systems you only have a layman's understanding of like the world economy or the details of national security are going to blow the fuck up if you decide wrongly?

Kennedy was the last President to call bullshit on this kind of coup via ready-made vision. It's up to the President to have at the ready , should he /she be elected, people whose broad judgement he or she trusts. El Prez needs to have selected these people either through reading their published works or through personal acquaintance or some other long running process going into the office. I am saying that as soon as they conceive of the idea of being El Prez in their imagination at age 25 or whatever, this should be a major preoccupation for them from that point forward.

What seems to happen is they look to people in government for advice at something like the last minute, as if their victory took them completely by surprise and they've got to do some hiring ! That just leads to insiders recommending insiders in what amounts to, as far as we or anyone else including the President knows, the latest iteration in a long played game of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

You cant' know everything; you have to outsource some part of your judgement, or at least you have to outsource some part of your bullshit detection subsystem.

Hard believe the transformation of Obama's POV since he's gotten into office. I guess it takes a Clinton-like character, someone who's *down*, or a Kennedy, someone who's not intimidated by the office , someone who either through self assurance or arrogance or hopefully properly placed faith in the rightness of her perceptions or what have you to be able to resist the Ready-Made Interpretation of Everything that's lying in wait for you like a cougar, the second you sit your ass down in the Oval Office.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...