Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#2Let's hope the "no standing" argument doesn't work this time?
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#3Let's hope the "no standing" argument doesn't work this time?
I really feel like we need a constitutional amendment disallowing laws that effectively make it impossible to have standing ( in the same way that we have a ban on ex post facto laws)
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#4Let's hope the "no standing" argument doesn't work this time?
Sorry if this is a naive question, but what is a "no standing argument"?
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#5Let's hope the "no standing" argument doesn't work this time?
Sorry if this is a naive question, but what is a "no standing argument"?
The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry if this is a naive question, but what is a "no standing argument"?
The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.
It is also used to prevent random serial litigants from clogging up the court system with BS cases. Requiring the plaintiff to show that they have actually suffered harm is not a difficult bar to cross in most cases and the benefits this requirement brings to the legal system as a whole outweigh its inconvenience in cases like this.
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.
It is also used to prevent random serial litigants from clogging up the court system with BS cases. Requiring the plaintiff to show that they have actually suffered harm is not a difficult bar to cross in most cases and the benefits this requirement brings to the legal system as a whole outweigh its inconvenience in cases like this.
Not to say that this is not a useful standard, but I do think we are beyond "inconvenience" here.
Following the current trajectory, surveillance is only going to grow as technology makes it easier and easier to gather more and more information without being noticed.
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.
It is also used to prevent random serial litigants from clogging up the court system with BS cases. Requiring the plaintiff to show that they have actually suffered harm is not a difficult bar to cross in most cases and the benefits this requirement brings to the legal system as a whole outweigh its inconvenience in cases like this.
I know, but I also know judges often rule based on "common sense" and "intent" of harm, regardless of the letter of the law.
Surely the fact that documents say that millions of people have been spied upon with such a program means that the judge should allow a case by an organization like EFF or HRW go through, even if the employees of that organization weren't personally affected by it? There should be a "for public interest" clause somewhere, or at least as an unwritten rule.
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry if this is a naive question, but what is a "no standing argument"?
The legal theory (or practice) that you have to prove you have been personally hurt in order to sue the government. Often the government claims that if you cannot prove you have been personally affected you can't sue, and then uses secrecy laws to ensure you can't prove you have been hurt.
Nit: you have to prove you have been personally hurt to sue anybody. It's a Constitutional perquisite to the federal judiciary's use of power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause.
Re: Human Rights Watch Sues DEA Over Bulk Collection of Americans’ Telephone Records
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also used to prevent random serial litigants from clogging up the court system with BS cases. Requiring the plaintiff to show that they have actually suffered harm is not a difficult bar to cross in most cases and the benefits this requirement brings to the legal system as a whole outweigh its inconvenience in cases like this.
I know, but I also know judges often rule based on "common sense" and "intent" of harm, regardless of the letter of the law . Surely the fact that documents say that millions of people have been spied upon with such a program means that the judge should allow a case by an organization like EFF or HRW go through, even if the employees of that organization weren't personally affected by it? There should be a "for publi…
How do you decide what organizations get that special privilege?