BREAKING: Federal judge rules NSA data gathering on all US telephone calls is unconstitutional

[JDPriestly]

207. I would love to hear your response to my discussion of your right to privacy with regard to the

metadata on calls to attorneys.

Remember, although they have to get a subpoena (at this time anyway) to obtain the content of the calls, e-mails and other communications, they are saving or will soon be saving that content.

Let's say that an attorney is representing a client in a federal court. The attorney calls witnesses and experts and does legal research over office phone numbers or the internet. It is possible that a federal attorney tracking the communications of the attorney's client will come upon the link between that attorney and the suspect client. The NSA can give that information about the attorney's research and probably will "inadvertently" supply it to the FBI.

Remember,

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a governmental agency belonging to the United States Department of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal investigative body and an internal intelligence agency (counterintelligence).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Thus, the FBI can receive information that should be privileged since it is the research of the attorney for a defendant whom the Justice Department is investigating, possibly prosecuting.

The Justice Department may claim that there is no sharing of information between the FBI and the prosecuting attorney, but the purpose of the FBI investigation is to provide information for prosecutors as they pursue their cases.

The Constitution guarantees defendants (certain defendants) the right to counsel and in other ways guarantees a fair trial. But making the metadata of the communications of defendants' attorneys, and that is all defendants', available to the Justice Department without the process of a warrant or subpoena, is really, really unacceptable.

Why is the subpoena so important? Because the attorney for the defendant can go to court and protest that the material being subpoenaed is irrelevant and subject to attorney privilege. The attorney can mask or black out information that the Justice Department should not have. This would, for example, include information on calls not relevant to the case at hand.

Thus, the NSA is violating more than just our Fourth Amendment rights. I can't believe that a mature attorney could agree to this program. I really wonder what kind of attorney OK'd it. I can't believe it really.

Another example: a client comes to an attorney's office with a case that involves explosives or some other dangerous substance. The attorney knows nothing about explosives or whatever and investigates. What is the first thing he/she does? Googles the words and concepts with which he/she is unfamiliar. What if someone accused of terrorism or someone who suspects another person of terrorism comes into the attorney's office and the attorney begins to investigate. The attorney has certain ethical obligations to advise the police if he believes that life is endangered. But what if that is not the case? Is the NSA going to turn around and investigate the attorney as a terrorism suspect because of the attorney's attempt to inform him or herself and assist his or her client?

The NSA is clearly violating a number of constitutional rights with this program. It is just not acceptable at all. And after watching the 60 Minutes program, I realize that they are hiring inexperienced, young and naive nerds with very little education to do their work. That is just reprehensible. These young people cannot possibly understand the social and political context of the work they are performing. Snowden was the exception. But then he was no longer that young and he probably at least read newspapers.