Posted on 04/07/2014 9:15:07 AM PDT by xzins
The US Supreme Court is chickening out and taking a step back from the entire NSA scandal. Rather than making a final decision on whether the bulk telephone metadata surveillance program is constitutional, the Supreme Court has decided to decline the case.
Instead, the Court has now left lower courts to contradict each other over the legality of this particular NSA surveillance program. One court, for instance, has described the metadata program as an “almost-Orwellian” effort.
In fact, this particular petition brought to the Supreme Court concerns precisely a decision given out by US District Judge Richard Leon, who also wrote that in his opinion, America’s founding fathers would be aghast at the spying practices.
Political activist Larry Klayman skipped the Appeal Court and went straight to the Supreme Court, saying that this is a case of imperative public importance, so it should immediately get the attention of the highest court. It should be mentioned that the Supreme Court doesn’t normally pick out cases before they go to the Federal Appeal Court.
The decision to ignore this particular case comes just before the White House is expected to come up with a series of more drastic reforms for the National Security Agency. So far, these reforms have extended to restricting the NSA’s access to the records and having a third party hold them rather than the agency itself, as if that will fix the issue generated by the initial collection.
Most people don’t really expect big changes in the way the United States conducts surveillance considering its weak response thus far and clear unwillingness to make any real changes.
The future of the telephony metadata collection program will most likely be decided by politicians rather than judges. There are several important bills awaiting in Congress, including some that will considerably cut down on NSA’s surveillance powers.
The intelligence community has been lobbying the Congress not to pass the bill, but social pressure might eventually pay off and the bills could still pass.
One of these bills has been written by Jim Sensenbrenner, the same man who wrote the Patriot Act, which the NSA uses to hide behind whenever it explains why a certain surveillance program is legal. Sensenbrenner now wants to set things right and make sure there’s no loophole to be used by the intelligence agencies.
“Metadata” is sometimes described as “the data about the data”.
For a photograph or digital image, the “metadata” might include:
where you were (gps), the date, the time, the type of camera, etc.
For things like a cell phone call, the “metadata” might include:
your phone number, the number you called, how long the call lasted,
the cell towers that you used or passed by (where you were),
the cell towers that who you called used or passed by (where they were).
Obama is in charge of the NSA. One EO and he could stop the data collection. Yet he acts as though there is nothing he can do.
I can’t disagree with your assertions one bit. Roberts is a traitor. After the revolution, he deserves the fate of a traitor.
Google has sophisticated parsers and semantic interpreters to attempt to match a person's interests with relevant ads. The NSA does the same to try to interpret sentiment, intent, then predict unwanted behavior. They call it Total Information Awareness. It's been going on since the dawn of networks - now a lot more people are aware of the existence, but are still ignorant of the extent.
The Supremist Court is now releasing their inner Obama and voting “PRESENT” on this and other court cases.
Perhaps the “metadata” they want scrubbed off is information normally contained within MS office documents.
For a Word file (per document inspector) this includes:
Comments, Revisions, Version, and Annotations
Properties and Personal information
Task Pane apps
Collapsed Headings
Custom XML data
Headers, Footers, and watermarks
Invisible content (e.g. white text on white background)
Obviously, if you are sending more information than you think you are, there is risk for you and the company.
I have heard of such information being introduced as evidence in legal disputes. Once distributed it is fair game.
We have iScrub to scrub that stuff out. Looking at your list, the big issue would be if someone could see the progression of drafts and comments. That kind of stuff would definitely be useful in a legal dispute.
SCOTUS abdication secondary to NSA loveINT.
Ben,
Can i post this on my FB page? I love it!
It’s very simple really. They didn’t have standing.
The “conservatives” on the court are 70’s era “law & order” authoritarians. There are no liberty loving Constitutionalists.
We’re doomed.
The judicial and the legislative arm of our government not longer have use. The executive branch (and NSA) has all the power.
The only benefit of having 500+ members of congress: keeping real estate values up for high end residential property.
We’ve not been able to count on the SC for a long time. It’s we, the people, who are the final arbiters of what is or isn’t Constitutional.
We got here by the passive acquiescence of American voters. They gave us two Roosevelts with a Wilson in between. Had FDR not died, they would have given him another term. Up until his Court Packing threat, we had a decent SCOTUS. Since then it's simply been a finger-in-the-wind institution.
The Looking Spoon owns it I think.
We got here by the passive acquiescence of American voters.
************
I think we are routinely defrauded at the polls. The judiciary has been embezzling power since Marbury v. Madison. We deserve better, but we have exhausted most peaceable means to get better.
The “conservatives” on the court are 70’s era “law & order” authoritarians. There are no liberty loving Constitutionalists.
********
The enormities they have signed off on in criminal law are appalling. Procedure over substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
