Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 501 posts

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#161

Post by mattkrause »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #133
fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that jive with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Probably the same way civil asset forfeiture does, somehow p…

I really have no idea why the 4th amendment only applies to a subset of mail, just that it does. It'd be great if someone with more knowledge could explain the reasoning behind it.

I would imagine there is more of a compelling state interest in protecting against actual "things" (contraband, bombs, etc), whereas a letter can pretty much only contain "speech".

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#162

Post by MereInterest »

bb88 wrote: post #156
homonculus1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No clause or amendment grants any right. Rights are explicitly innate to the individual and not granted by or limited to the constitution.

An originalist would point out that the constitution does not grant rights, but merely limits the laws and actions that government can take. Despite what the constitution says, human rights are not self evident, they must in fact be legalized.

This hypothetical originalist would have an interesting time dealing with the ninth amendment, which explicitly states that the Bill of Rights is not a full listing of all human rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#163

Post by tssva »

MereInterest wrote: post #159
colejohnson66 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law author…

I'm not aware of any law that gives the NSA carte blanche to observe my communications. Can you site the specific law?

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#164

Post by bb88 »

garmaine wrote: post #102
bb88 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But was it illegal? And how would you know that such a warrant didn't actually exist in a court, particularly the FISA court? It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.

Have you been paying attention? At the time that Snowden made his revelations, no approval was necessary for an NSA analyst to activate a webcam, for example. They literally just had to select from a menu of totally broad reasons on an internal web form documenting the access. They had a congressionally granted exemption from requiring case-by-case FISA approval. This is now all open and acknowledged, and found to be…

Last I checked, the courts made the final decision on what's legal and what's not.

I haven't seen the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that says that warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Maybe you can point it out to me?

The point isn't that I disagree with you on what should be legal or illegal, I very much agree with you.

The point is, unless something enters a court of law for ajudication, it's very much in the land of the political.

And there's a lot of darkness surrounding the FISA court, much of which cannot be challenged. Is it legal? It looks like the courts say it is.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#165

Post by tootie »

gnud wrote: post #8
tootie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part was criminal? And how would he prove that?

The alleged spying on US citizens. I know the rest of us are fair game somehow. This could be a chance to get this before the courts, was my actual (badly communicated) point.

Snowden exposed bulk metadata collection that was greenlit by the FISA court. They were granted explicit legal authority before doing it, so there's zero chance of anyone being criminally liable.

The more egregious spying program during the Bush administration (Stellar Wind) was exposed years earlier by the NY Times.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#166

Post by colejohnson66 »

tssva wrote: post #163
MereInterest wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law author…

I'm not aware of any law that gives the NSA carte blanche to observe my communications. Can you site the specific law?

The PATRIOT Act is a big one[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#167

Post by txcwpalpha »

mattkrause wrote: post #161
txcwpalpha wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really have no idea why the 4th amendment only applies to a subset of mail, just that it does. It'd be great if someone with more knowledge could explain the reasoning behind it.

I would imagine there is more of a compelling state interest in protecting against actual "things" (contraband, bombs, etc), whereas a letter can pretty much only contain "speech".

My original comment was apparently unclear in this, but in regards to the 4th amendment protections, there isn't a distinction between "things" being sent via mail and "speech" being sent by mail. Some letters of "speech" are not covered by the 4th amendment, just as some bulk shipments of "things" are covered by the 4th amendment.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#168

Post by plopz »

r00fus wrote: post #24
HashThis wrote: post #21

This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit. The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed. This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government remo…

Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Where is that enshrined? I say this as someone who values privacy for all.

There's an episode of the West Wing that goes into this, "The Short List". One of the characters, Sam Seaborn is questioning a nominee of the supreme court about his position on privacy. It's classic Aaron Sorkin writing, but it might address your question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaEBXmeaXbI

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#169

Post by tssva »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #80
geggam wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the fact the constitution binds the govt and details what rights the govt has I am not sure how the govt has a leg to stand on.

Because, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal. [0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 only provides protection for government employees which Snowden was not and it also doesn't apply to intelligence agency at least when classified material is involved. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is the applicable law here and applies to government employees and contractors. It specifies the process of reporting waste,fraud or abuse when classified material is involved and provides protection if the process is followed. Snowden choose not to follow the provided process and therefore is protected under the law.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#170

Post by jonnybgood »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #166
tssva wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any law that gives the NSA carte blanche to observe my communications. Can you site the specific law?

The PATRIOT Act is a big one[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

It would be helpful if you could cite specifically where it says the NSA can do this. I don't see it anywhere on the wikipedia page.
Post reply on HN