Federal Appeals Court Says NSA Phone Records Program Illegal

[IDemo]

Source: NBC

A federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency's program of collecting billions of telephones records is not permitted by the Patriot Act.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in ACLU vs. Clapper, said a lower court was wrong in ruling that the Patriot Act, as written, precluded a court from reviewing the NSA program.

"Because we find that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized, we vacate the decision below dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants'constitutional arguments," Judge Gerard Lynch wrote for the court.

The court did not address the question of whether the program violated peoples' rights ,because the issue was made moot by the finding the program was not allowed in the first place.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/federal-appeals-court-says-nsa-phone-records-program-illegal-n355271

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. ;''the program was not allowed in the first place. ''

where is all of our NSA apologists?

[Jesus Malverde]

5. Snowdenite

[riderinthestorm]

25. How are they going to rationalize Snowden's charges under the Espionage Act now?

he revealed these illegal activities by the U.S. and has now been vindicated by the court.

[asiliveandbreathe]

2. Now - what will they do with this Data Center

From article - http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-the-nsas-utah-data-center-2013-6

The NSA's official mandate is to listen to and decode all foreign communications of interest to the security of the U.S.

But given the fact the NSA already reportedly intercepts 1.7 billion American electronic records and communications a day, it makes sense that they would need to expand operations beyond its sprawling headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland.

Impressive facility, Huh?? How about a non profit higher education facility???

[christx30]

3. The only logical, responsible thing.

Cat photos from the Internet.

[jeff47]

12. All of the phone data in the US isn't that big.

If it was only US phone data, they wouldn't need that datacenter.

Keep in mind there's a lot more non-US persons than US persons. That's a lot of data that is 100% legal for the US government to obtain and track.

[PSPS]

29. It is when they record everything.

The data center captures and stores all phone calls, email, text messages, etc. And the scope of its activity isn't limited to the US.

[jeff47]

32. No, it really isn't.

You can store thousands to millions of phone calls on one hard disk.

And the scope of its activity isn't limited to the US.

Actually, the exact opposite. That was my point. There's a hell of a lot of data when you're collecting from non-US persons.

If you look at the docs Snowden actually leaked instead of the coverage of those documents, you'll find they are explicitly avoiding US persons with all programs except phone records. Phone records don't have the contents of a phone call, text message or email.

The coverage breathlessly warns about such tools being turned on the US, but the documents don't support the claim.

[Jesus Malverde]

4. This court has little idea what the NSA is up to.

Joke really.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. This president has little idea what the NSA is up to.

If you want to talk about jokes
and for that matter neither does congress.

[Jesus Malverde]

7. Yep

[dickthegrouch]

8. Finally a Judge who knows the law

What a concept!

[Not water]

18. I would add that all 3 judges agreed

All Obama appointees.

[jalan48]

9. An interesting take by a political science professor at Tufts.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2014/10/18/review-national-security-and-double-government-michael-glennon/tUhBBdSj8s0WW1HoWUf20M/story.html


He argues that a "double government" exists in the US today. The one we see, Congress and the President, and a second one, the National Security State that actually makes the big decisions. He likens it to 19th Century England where the people still believed the King/Queen were the rulers when in reality their Parliament had usurped that role. Americans aren't quite ready for official NSA/Corporate Rule so we continue with elections and slowly ease into the new set up.

[Enthusiast]

22. +1

[riderinthestorm]

24. +1 nt

[grasswire]

26. absolutely

It has been abundantly clear that Obama serves the National Security State (willingly or unwillingly, we don't know).

[IDemo]

10. Ever been to a business meeting that dragged on too long?

Impatient drumming of fingertips on the table, sideways smirks, yawns and the classic wanking hand gestures. This will be the response of the NSA to this ruling. Nothing of substance will change behind the scenes.

[CharlotteVale]

11. K&R

[jeff47]

13. This is a bad result in one way.

A 1979 SCOTUS ruling declared that phone records are run-of-the-mill business records, and thus not protected by the 4th amendment.

Back then, phone records were a lot less detailed. Cell phones have to send a ton more data to the phone company in order to work, but that data is still "phone records".

If the case ends here, they can still collect the data. They can't use the patriot act to do it, but there's nothing in the constitution forbidding it due to that 1979 ruling. It would be good for the ACLU to get this in front of the SCOTUS so that 1979 ruling could be revisited.

(It could also be done via passing a law to turn phone records into protected information, but that will happen shortly after I'm named Pope)

[Not water]

15. The 1979 case was about one guy who committed a crime

Not about bulk metadata.

[jeff47]

16. Doesn't matter.

By declaring them a business record, they are not protected. Whether they are one person's records, or 300M people's records.

[Not water]

19. It matters a lot

His records were relevant to the investigation into his crime. Good luck finding relevance in bulk collection. That's a lot of "suspected criminals ".

[jeff47]

20. Except the ruling did not require the person to be suspected of a crime.

Again, business records are not protected. Period. There is no need to suspect the person of any crime. They are available to the government at any time, for any reason.

They're also available for sale by the phone company. Because they are not protected.

[Not water]

23. The ruling required suspicion

I understand that your view of relevance is the same as Alexander's and Clapper's, and I am sorry that the unanimous panel isn't here to hear your argument. I'm sure they haven't heard it before.
😂

[jeff47]

28. Not the part I am talking about.

Again, the part I am talking about is turning them into business records.

You go buy a pizza. You have no right to privacy over the receipt for that pizza, because it's a business record - it belongs to the business and you have no legal control over what they do with that record.

Turning phone records into that kind of record means no suspicion is required. The record belongs to AT&T, and you have no legal control over what AT&T does with that record.

If the government wants to use that record in a prosecution, then they need suspicion. But they're already prosecuting, so they have suspicion. If the government wants to vacuum them all up for fun, they only need permission from AT&T. Golly, I wonder if a company operating in a heavily-regulated monopoly position could be compelled by the government to hand over those records.

[cstanleytech]

21. The relevancy they will claim is that they are monitoring for terrorists forming hidden networks

and they will then point out that such hidden networks have existed as demonstrated by 9/11 and thus they need the ability to try and detect them but of course that doesnt do anything if the networks are using something online thats encrypted as well as using tor or something similar.

[PSPS]

30. In 1979, these records were kept by the Bell System.

I have first-hand knowledge of how the Bell System guarded all of their records, including call records. What's going on today could never have happened in the days of the bell System.

[jeff47]

33. Sure, except for the fact that it actually happened in 1979

Well, 1975. That's how the case that reached the SCOTUS.

Easy bulk collection is new. Collection is not.

[Not water]

14. Flashback: Bob Cesca slams Glenn Greenwald, calls phone dragnet 'legal'

http://docdro.id/zmx8

[grasswire]

27. Bob Cesca is a nobody, a shill.

His opinion means nothing.

[PSPS]

31. Yes, and I go to Playboy Bunnies for expert medical advice.

[Demeter]

17. I regret that I have only one Rec. to give to this Constitutional Issue!

It deserves a billion or more.