Dangerous Times

[hjmick]

A government is most dangerous when it no longer fears the people for whom it works, when those who are hired represent the people no longer concern themselves with what it is the people want.


These are dangerous times indeed...

[Kathianne]

A government is most dangerous when it no longer fears the people for whom it works, when those who are hired represent the people no longer concern themselves with what it is the people want.


These are dangerous times indeed...

Agree! An example;

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131016/06414624894/doj-argues-no-one-has-standing-to-challenge-metadata-collection-even-as-it-says-govt-can-legally-collect-everyones.shtml


DOJ Argues No One Has Standing To Challenge Metadata Collection Even As It Says Govt Can Legally Collect Everyone'sfrom the no-expectation-of-privacy-and-no-right-to-sue dept Privacy activists EPIC have taken a novel approach to challenging the bulk records collections. Rather than work its way up through the circuit courts, it has appealed to the Supreme Court directly, asking it to find that the NSA has exceeded its authority by collecting data on American citizens.

Like the ACLU, EPIC is a Verizon customer. Both have used the first of Snowden's leaks to pursue lawsuits against the intelligence agency. But EPIC's is the first to attempt to initiate proceedings in the nation's highest court (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/u-s-opposes-challenge-to-nsa-spying/).
Arguing that no lower court would have the authority to rule upon the legality of that FISC order, EPIC took its plea directly to the Supreme Court. Its filing in July asked the Court to rule that the FIS Court has wrongly claimed authority for its global data-gathering under a 2001 federal law. That law gave the FIS tribunal the power to issue electronic surveillance orders to produce "tangible things" during an investigation of potential threats to national security.

EPIC asked the Supreme Court either to vacate the FIS Court order to Verizon or to bar its further enforcement, contending that the compelled "production of millions of domestic telephone records . . . cannot plausibly be relevant to an authorized investigation" of potential terrorist activities. The government has filed a brief (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-58-US-brief-in-opp.pdf) arguing that EPIC's complaint should be routed through lower courts first. The government's rebuttal leans heavily on procedural arguments, first pointing out that only the federal government itself or the entity receiving the FISC orders can challenge these orders. In addition, the government points out that the law creating the FISA Court does not provide protection to third parties like EPIC.

It also argues (as it has successfully in the past (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/00140723387/remember-when-supreme-court-rejected-review-fisa-amendments-act-because-it-was-too-speculative-that-plaintiffs-were-being.shtml)) that EPIC can't prove it has suffered harm from the collection of its phone data.
Further, the government contended, EPIC has not offered proof that it could satisfy the requirements of the Constitution's Article III as a party with a specific claim to an injury as a result of government action. Notably, the government isn't arguing that EPIC can't prove its metadata was obtained. Snowden's first leak (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130605/20062423332/leaked-document-shows-nsa-is-harvesting-call-data-millions-verizon-subscribers.shtml) eliminated that issue. Instead, it's arguing that no citizen or entity other that the entity the records were obtained from has standing to sue or otherwise challenge FISA court orders.

...