0
105

[–] kivan117 0 points 105 points (+105|-0) ago 

I'm glad the federal judge saw fit to rule on the side of privacy and protecting the people's constitutional rights. Unfortunately I do not believe we'll see this have a large enough impact on how federal agencies, including the less secretive ones like the FBI and DEA, actually operate. Truthfully they all seem to think that, as enforcers of the law, they are above the law. No matter how many rulings like this stack up, until violators are being individually held accountable for their actions, we won't see a change from the ever increasing surveillance.

0
33

[–] TSMBjergsenEgo 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agree with you. I'm not sure how we go about holding these organizations accountable at this point. It's been clearly demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to ignore any laws and regulations that are inconvenient for them. My instinct would be to punish individuals instead of organizations. If you were someone in a management position at a three letter agency and suddenly "just following orders" had the potential to land you personally in prison, you might rethink your just-going-along-with-it point of view.

0
13

[–] FatPepe 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

The only true way to get around this is large scale decentralized, encrypted, uncensorable systems.

0
3

[–] Mertan 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You hit the spot Bjersen, accountability for "above the law" actions is highly needed right now.

0
2

[–] spacedanspliff 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

the problem I think is the fact that you need to show harm in order for the courts to take up a case against the govt (and really, for any case to go to court regardless of the defendant). Since they won't tell you what information they have on you, or even that they have the information, its all but impossible to prove the harm part, so yea they'll keep doing what they want regardless of rulings such as Ms. Koh's. Sad, really.

1
2

[–] VanGoghingSomewhere 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I am the law.

LLLAAAAAWWWW?

0
4

[–] 1465248? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] ineedbettername 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Just going to leave this here...

0
0

[–] binky 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And if judges start to consistently demand warrants there's always parallel construction.

Pro tip: Every time you read of an improbably clever investigation or chain of evidence? Parallel construction.

0
0

[–] selpai 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They are above the law.

0
33

[–] reed 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago 

"We don't care." -NSA

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] taco 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

That was a lovely wiki article to start a wiki binge on Greek words haha. Thanks for that!

0
0

[–] Longtimelurker 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
30

[–] dave31175 0 points 30 points (+30|-0) ago 

As if the federal govt had any intention of ever abiding by the constitution...

0
22

[–] dreameater 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The thing is warrants aren't very hard to get.

0
29

[–] sonst-was 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

Especially for intelligence services with their own court...

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] spacedanspliff 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

agree'd...But to get a warrant they have to basically tip their hand about the surveillance, which they don't want to do. Don't worry, congress will find a way to pass some legislation that says they can do it without a warrant and everything will be hunky dory!

0
18

[–] nhepner 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Secret court with secret laws has secretly overturned her decision.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Browngaijin 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

"We feel that this material may offend a certain group."

The new cry of the oppressors.

0
6

[–] JesTheRed 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Fuck that, they kept the decision 100% intact and fully agreed with it.

They just changed the meaning of it to do the opposite in secret.

0
9

[–] TheSafeWasALie 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Mere posturing, I know not a single government entity or person is going to be held accountable for violating our rights.

0
5

[–] grey_smile 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'm surprised this is even a question. It's like saying that the First Amendment protects my speech online.. Duh

0
4

[–] thuglas 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This is piecemeal progress but progress nonetheless.

0
3

[–] Voat_Goat_of_Mendes 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I love Lucy

load more comments ▼ (18 remaining)