Federal Judge: NSA Can't Be Sued Because We "Shouldn't Know About it Anyway"
85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Billiam;43383080]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.[/QUOTE]
Basically, that argument is such that the government has its own right to privacy - which it really doesn't. A person's right to free speech and a press' right to free media trumps the hiding of illegal actions by a government, and is what both of those rights are reserved and protected for.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;43377336]Not really no, this is one of the most basic elements of US law, evidence obtained in an illegal fashion is inadmissable in court.
Not saying this is right or anything, but it's not precedent setting, this is the same principle that says police can't use evidence found in unwarranted searches.[/QUOTE]
Do two wrongs make a right? In this case, it ought to be accepted that while Edward Snowden broke the law, he did so as it was the only way to reveal a much more egregious violation of the law.
[QUOTE=mastoner20;43383152]Basically, that argument is such that the government has its own right to privacy - which it really doesn't. A person's right to free speech and a press' right to free media trumps the hiding of illegal actions by a government, and is what both of those rights are reserved and protected for.[/QUOTE]
Not only does it not have a right to privacy - it has an obligation to transparency.
[QUOTE=Billiam;43383080]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.[/QUOTE]
And you didn't refute anything I said, either. Like it or not, loophole or not, it's an [I]existing[/I] precedent being applied in an unintended but consistent way, not a totally new precedent being established, and all it will take is for another judge to come along and say 'No, that's retarded, the ACLU can proceed' and the lawsuit will continue.
[QUOTE=Stopper;43383362]Not only does it not have a right to privacy - it has an obligation to transparency.[/QUOTE]
The citizens as individual persons have the undeniable right to have privacy from their government.
A government as a organisation managing a country doesn't have that right towards their own citizens.
Otherwise the government would only serve its own interests instead of its peoples interests.
And you can't have a government without people backing it.
[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43383546]The citizens as individual persons have the undeniable right to have privacy from their government.
A government as a organisation managing a country doesn't have that right towards their own citizens.[/QUOTE]
That's a nice bumper sticker quote but in order for citizens to have privacy, the government has to keep secrets from ordinary citizens, and there's no way around it. Even just your tax returns carry an enormous amount of personal information that you trust your government not to give to any jackass insisting that the government can't keep secrets from him.
[QUOTE=booster;43378287]If a NSA falls in the forest, and nobody is there to see it.
Can you sue it?[/QUOTE]
It's perfectly legal for them to fall without anyone being there to see it because they said so, so NYEH.
[editline]1st January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tophat;43381187]This is the height of ridiculousness. I want to move out of this miserable continent, there's far too much bullshit going on here.[/QUOTE]
Some guy I watch on Youtube already has. Born in Canada, moved to the US, said "Yeah fuck this noise" and now he lives in Chile. :/
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;43381671]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!"[/QUOTE]
The Federal Government is just a big fucked-up game of Calvin Ball... It's all becoming so clear now!
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;43384020]The Federal Government is just a big fucked-up game of Calvin Ball... It's all becoming so clear now![/QUOTE]
As someone who's worked in federal government, I can say for certain that you have no idea how goddamn apt that comparison is.
It's a big game of Calvinball where every single agency, interest group, contracting firm, oversight committee, military branch, and politician is a player.
Which is why we rely on precedent so that whoever happens to be in charge [I]can't[/I] change the rules on a whim. Sometimes precedent doesn't indicate what's right, and then an alternative solution has to be found, but suggesting that we discard some of our most fundamental legal principles because we don't like the outcome they suggest is short-sighted and only asking for trouble later on. In this case the judge's ruling isn't 'right', but it's consistent with precedent, and I'd rather another way be found to approach this legally (or at least a different interpretation by a different judge) than to set a new precedent that could be used to greatly erode protection of the people against their government, which would be [I]extremely[/I] ironic given the nature of this case.
Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Do you [i]really[/i] want the US government, powerful as it is, and already facing issues of law enforcement overstepping their legal boundaries, to have legal precedent for using information acquired illegally in court?
For future reference, I think they need to make their secrets more secreter.
If we are paying these guys to be hidden and gather info outside of the public eye, then they need to start actually hiding it. Otherwise we are just paying them to fuck up.
Instead of suing for law changes or whatever, we should be suing for a god-damned refund.
So lets say the US government committed a few atrocities and kept them a secret...
This is especially ironic because the NSA's entire job is to learn things they aren't supposed to know about.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;43377346]This idea of illegal evidence only binds the governments, not the citizenry.[/QUOTE]
During a prosecution, yes. But during a lawsuit, both sides need to defend and prosecute. So the citizenry have to follow the same rules.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;43377306]It's us, the people, that elect and fund congress. They should be answering to us instead of spying on us.[/QUOTE]
That's the entire point behind the right to bear arms, to keep the government in check and in fear of another revolution by an armed populace capable of doing it if they should ever become tyrant, making sure that they answer to the people, rather than the people answer to them.
'Course times have changed and that shit ain't gonna work no more. The people in power have long since stopped being public servants, and instead become rulers. Of course if I say the government needs a good spring cleaning my cell phone's camera is going to turn on and start snapping photos and shit so, you know, All's good in the hood, I love America, USA #1 Go Bears!
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43386258]
'Course times have changed and that shit ain't gonna work no more. The people in power have long since stopped being public servants, and instead become rulers. Of course if I say the government needs a good spring cleaning my cell phone's camera is going to turn on and start snapping photos and shit so, you know, All's good in the hood, I love America, USA #1 Go Bears![/QUOTE]
I think that's how we made it through the 50's. By repressing everything and putting on a patriotic face.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43386258]That's the entire point behind the right to bear arms, to keep the government in check and in fear of another revolution by an armed populace capable of doing it if they should ever become tyrant, making sure that they answer to the people, rather than the people answer to them.
'Course times have changed and that shit ain't gonna work no more. The people in power have long since stopped being public servants, and instead become rulers. Of course if I say the government needs a good spring cleaning my cell phone's camera is going to turn on and start snapping photos and shit so, you know, All's good in the hood, I love America, USA #1 Go Bears![/QUOTE]
If your expect any of the freshmen congressional members to have known about any of this, you're smoking something.
[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]
There's a difference between the citizens and government though. For one thing the government is not a person. And specifically because they are in charge of everything they should be held to a different standard than the citizens of the country just like the police should be. In a case like this one the people never would have had any input whatsoever in such a program because we never would have known about it. And that's not right. I understand certain things should be kept secret such as personal information, troop movements and amounts and such, informant information, etc. but things like this which are so questionable and guaranteed to cause a massive outcry should have to go through the public first, even if they do have to leave out some exact details.
And in a case like this where someone has leaked information about a secret program we never would have known about otherwise, it should not ever be a valid defense to say we weren't meant to know about it. People have very valid concerns about the program and they aren't providing anything to prove they're not actually invading our privacy or even that the program is working. Merely citing that the information on its performance is classified. This information would not really damage the program honestly. No more than Snowden's leak already has.
As for suing the NSA specifically, it should really depend on exactly what the NSA is being sued for and what the person or people suing want. If they're just going after money then no, that seems to have no place in this. If they are suing to try and get the program shut down or information released on it however, that seems perfectly valid.
It's like Gmod darkRP
[QUOTE=voltlight;43387404]It's like Gmod darkRP[/QUOTE]
NSA is accusing the US public of meta-gaming?
shit like this is why I'm anti-govenment
[QUOTE=tirpider;43386351]I think that's how we made it through the 50's. By repressing everything and putting on a patriotic face.[/QUOTE]
Semi-related; I had a debate with my Dad several years ago in the lame-duck between Bush II and Obama about how the Cold War wasn't dead, it just changed targets. This kind of crap is reminding me that I was right... :/
[QUOTE=Alice3173;43387383]There's a difference between the citizens and government though. For one thing the government is not a person. And specifically because they are in charge of everything they should be held to a different standard than the citizens of the country just like the police should be. In a case like this one the people never would have had any input whatsoever in such a program because we never would have known about it. And that's not right. I understand certain things should be kept secret such as personal information, troop movements and amounts and such, informant information, etc. but things like this which are so questionable and guaranteed to cause a massive outcry should have to go through the public first, even if they do have to leave out some exact details.
And in a case like this where someone has leaked information about a secret program we never would have known about otherwise, it should not ever be a valid defense to say we weren't meant to know about it. People have very valid concerns about the program and they aren't providing anything to prove they're not actually invading our privacy or even that the program is working. Merely citing that the information on its performance is classified. This information would not really damage the program honestly. No more than Snowden's leak already has.
As for suing the NSA specifically, it should really depend on exactly what the NSA is being sued for and what the person or people suing want. If they're just going after money then no, that seems to have no place in this. If they are suing to try and get the program shut down or information released on it however, that seems perfectly valid.[/QUOTE]
You're like the third person now to read my post, miss the point entirely, and reply without refuting it at all.
At no point did I say this is justified, or that it's fair that the ACLU can't sue. I even pointed out that all it will take is another judge to come along and reverse the decision and the lawsuit will continue. Literally all I said is that contrary to the legion of morons saying 'lol its like I murdered someone and said i can';t be prsecuted because it was supposed to be secret!!1!!' there is actually a legal basis to this and it's [I]not[/I] setting a new precedent, it's upholding an old one, [I]whether this application of that precedent is justified or not[/I], and if you actually [B]read[/B] the document the judge wrote it's clear that the judge is saying 'We aren't the ones who should be deciding this, so we're going to go with what's on the books and you all can sort it out yourselves'.
It's like some people have no idea how the legal process works. No, this is not the right decision, yes, there's a difference between a private citizen and the government, but it's not surprising, it's not setting a new precedent, and most importantly it's not final and could easily be reversed in a week by a different judge.
[QUOTE=murple;43388465]shit like this is why I'm anti-govenment[/QUOTE]
anti-government as in how? Surely you would be pro a government that didn't do this kind of shit?
[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;43377348]literally the entirety of pop culture[/QUOTE]
in the past, not so much now tho
lmao i just learned telephony was a word
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.