• Federal Judge: NSA Can't Be Sued Because We "Shouldn't Know About it Anyway"
    85 replies, posted
Now I'm no historian but if I recall, one of the founding fathers said somewhere that if the government isn't doing things for the people then it needs to be replaced... Again, not a quote, just something that popped up in my head while reading this.
So what they're saying is that we were in the wrong when we tried and executed Nazi officers because we weren't meant to know about the Holocaust?
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;43378621]So what they're saying is that we were in the wrong when we tried and executed Nazi officers because we weren't meant to know about the Holocaust?[/QUOTE] I don't think metaphors or analogies are going to apply to this one. The vibe I get from it is that they saying "we are the boss and you are not."
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43378364]Lots of countries have similar surveillance. You and others are reacting to this with suprise. Why is it so hard to accept that an intelligence agency gathers data? Being secretive about what they do is kind of necessary to make their methods more effective.[/QUOTE] If the US jumped off a cliff, would your country do it too? Probably, but you get my point.
[QUOTE=tirpider;43378637]I don't think metaphors or analogies are going to apply to this one. The vibe I get from it is that they saying "we are the boss and you are not."[/QUOTE] That's not just the vibe of it, that's basically the message. "You weren't supposed to know about this, so as far as we're concerned - you don't."
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;43378671]If the US jumped off a cliff, would your country do it too? Probably, but you get my point.[/QUOTE] Isn't that the same anology they use in on 10 year olds? how old are you? At least think up a relevant example like "if the us started modern intelligence and counter intelligence operations would your country do to? " There you go, you can use that on your friends.
Can't we just zerg rush their HQ and be done with it already?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43378733]Isn't that the same anology they use in on 10 year olds? how old are you?[/QUOTE] That was the joke...
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43378733]Isn't that the same anology they use in on 10 year olds? how old are you? At least think up a relevant example like "if the us started modern intelligence and counter intelligence operations would your country do to? " There you go, you can use that on your friends.[/QUOTE] You're picking a really dumb argument.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;43377234]This is dumb as fuck and sets a really shitty precedent[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Forumaster;43377239]Just think about it, you can now get away with anything by saying that the law shouldn't have known about it in the first place since you didn't tell them.[/QUOTE] That's not what it's saying at all. In fact, what the judge is doing is stubbornly upholding the same legal precedent that prevents police from storming into your house without a warrant, searching your house for the slightest infraction, and then arresting you and getting you convicted even though the entire procedure was completely illegal. Information and details procured through an illegal source aren't allowed in court because they would set the precedent of allowing people, particularly law enforcement, to deliberately break the law to get evidence. Snowden was acting as an employee of the federal government and was legally bound by his secrecy agreement, so anything he leaks could be considered invalid in court. Even if I have committed a serious crime, any evidence that the police find through illegal means is not valid in court, no matter how obvious it is that I'm guilty or how good the intentions of the police officer were. This principle has been around for a long time and it's a good one to have next time the police try trampling all over your rights, in this case it's just being applied overly literally. Another judge may reverse the decision entirely. [editline]1st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Fish Muffin;43377534]Okay, so I break into someones house and find a torture / rape room in their basement along with the still warm body of their latest victim... i guess theyre a-okay[/QUOTE] If you were working for a government law enforcement agency and had signed a legal agreement to adhere to federal laws regarding investigative evidence, yeah, pretty much- unless the judge decides to overturn it and allow the evidence with proper justification. A precedent is not a 100% airtight thing, it can always be interpreted in different ways.
This is the height of ridiculousness. I want to move out of this miserable continent, there's far too much bullshit going on here.
this really makes me want to start shooting some federal Judges and NSA heads. This is getting out of hand. Oh god, goodbye u gais
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;43381547]Violence isn't the answer[/QUOTE] Because petitioning them to stop is totally going to make them fuck off, right?
Bullshit If you can sue the Airforce over Area 51 which doesn't exist on paper you can sue the NSA over a secret surveillance program [editline]1st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ZakkShock;43381578]Because petitioning them to stop is totally going to make them fuck off, right?[/QUOTE] You go ahead and I'll watch okay?
This seriously sounds like something a little kid would say to his friend while playing a make-believe game. "Nuh-uh, you can't do that because you're not supposed to know about it!"
Wow the NSA is so messed up it makes the CIA look sane.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;43377346]This idea of illegal evidence only binds the governments, not the citizenry.[/QUOTE] If a policeman illegally searches your computer and finds that you pirated music, the RIAA can't use that police-obtained evidence to sue you. If a federal officer illegally leaks information, the ACLU can't use that government-obtained evidence to sue the government. It's a well-worn legal precedent that people here defend all the time, but now that a judge is applying it for the government's benefit suddenly it's a bad thing. It's not setting a new precedent, it's upholding an old one, and for all we know another judge will come along tomorrow and say that the public good outweighs previous precedent and he'll allow the suit to proceed.
So basically what happened here is that evidence found or disclosed in an illegal fashion can't be used in the court of law, correct? Doesn't that mean that the NSA can't use anything against us that they find due to the fact that it violates the Fourth Amendment, or am I wrong?
[QUOTE=Flazer210;43382034]So basically what happened here is that evidence found or disclosed in an illegal fashion can't be used in the court of law, correct? Doesn't that mean that the NSA can't use anything against us that they find due to the fact that it violates the Fourth Amendment, or am I wrong?[/QUOTE] You're absolutely correct, but... You weren't supposed to know about it, so it's dismissible proof. Apparently.
[QUOTE=Flazer210;43382034]Doesn't that mean that the NSA can't use anything against us that they find due to the fact that it violates the Fourth Amendment, or am I wrong?[/QUOTE] The FISA court rules that non-specifically identifying information collected in aggregate, without the degree of specificity needed to identify who is being analyzed, does not constitute a violation of the 4th. This, however, may be changing, as public sentiment is very strongly against it.
I don't think I should be prosecuted for murdering that guy because nobody was supposed to know about it anyway. what the christ
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43378364]Lots of countries have similar surveillance. You and others are reacting to this with suprise. Why is it so hard to accept that an intelligence agency gathers data? Being secretive about what they do is kind of necessary to make their methods more effective.[/QUOTE] Lots of other countries also fund terrorism, stone rape victims, and place people in forced labor camps. I guess the U.S. should start doing that, too.
[QUOTE=slayer64;43382233]Lots of other countries also fund terrorism, stone rape victims, and place people in forced labor camps. I guess the U.S. should start doing that, too.[/QUOTE] The US already waterboards suspected terrorists and detain them until they confess, so they're already halfway there.
[QUOTE=Stopper;43382091]You're absolutely correct, but... You weren't supposed to know about it, so it's dismissible proof. Apparently.[/QUOTE] Even though anything they obtain is completely in violation of the fourth. Wow. That's... so stupid.
Is this directed at the people or the government? Because if it's against the government it makes sense because it's the same precedent that stops the law from storming in your house and arresting you for stuff they found in your house. If it's against the government then wow, that means the government acknowledges the NSA have done criminal activities and allow it as long as the public doesn't know.
What happened to that whole 'Right to face your accuser' thing, as well as 'no unreasonable searches and seizures'? Pretty certain the whole Constitution thing trumps some crappy law...
Digging the transparency and openness. I predict some more leaks from the Snowden documents to remind everyone of the balance of power.
it's funny cus the NSA knows tons of things they probably weren't meant to know about (but will still have the feds arrest them anyways!)
This is especially hilarious when you realize that the US government's various agencies, primarily the FBI, have had a practice of using intelligence to get probable cause/a warrant to go nab someone, and forging evidence that will give them the same evidence against the suspect without revealing internal intelligence -- this is a violation of due process, BTW, as the accused is not presented with the actual evidence being used against him/her. Don't rate me dumb for complaining about the "proper" application of judicial standards when the government throws them out the window on a moment-by-moment basis. This is how a democracy eats itself out of apathy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43381897]If a policeman illegally searches your computer and finds that you pirated music, the RIAA can't use that police-obtained evidence to sue you. If a federal officer illegally leaks information, the ACLU can't use that government-obtained evidence to sue the government. It's a well-worn legal precedent that people here defend all the time, but now that a judge is applying it for the government's benefit suddenly it's a bad thing. It's not setting a new precedent, it's upholding an old one, and for all we know another judge will come along tomorrow and say that the public good outweighs previous precedent and he'll allow the suit to proceed.[/QUOTE] That doesn't really refute what he said, you can't really make parallels like that between a government body and an ordinary citizen. The whole rationale behind that precedent is to protect citizens from unchecked government power. It's a dumb legal technically, a breakdown in reasoning, and very much a bad thing when the roles are reversed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.