NSA Hacked Email Account of Mexican President 242
rtoz writes "The National Security Agency (NSA ) of United States hacked into the Mexican president's public email account and gained deep insight into policymaking and the political system. The news is likely to hurt ties between the US and Mexico. This operation, dubbed 'Flatliquid,' is described in a document leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Meanwhile U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is urging the Supreme Court not to take up the first case it has received on controversial National Security Agency cybersnooping."
As a Mexican... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)
First time I've seen the government argue that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
All the other cases that have been quashed were either from claiming the plaintiff had no standing to sue, or that it involved State Secrets.
The problem is that EPIC is trying to jump the line. There aren't many circumstances in which a direct filing to the US Supreme Court is appropriate without going through the process in the lower courts. What EPIC did really isn't appropriate.
Administration looks to dodge Supreme Court challenge to NSA program [thehill.com]
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition directly to the Supreme Court in July, claiming that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court overstepped its authority when it granted the NSA permission to collect the phone records in bulk.
The program — the most controversial revelation from the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — collects phone numbers, call times and call durations, but not the contents of conversations, according to the NSA.
Other civil liberties groups have sued to end the NSA program, but those cases were filed in federal district court . EPIC is the only group to go directly to the Supreme Court.
Re:Well that's new (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't just a question of standing before any court, but a bigger problem before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a limited scope of issues.
A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court [supremecourt.gov]
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Original Jurisdiction [heritage.org]
The Court has been assiduous in protecting the Constitution's core grant of original jurisdiction from congressional expansion. The Court explicitly declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that Congress cannot add to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
Re:So what is this about? (Score:5, Informative)
Snowden turned all of his documents over to journalists whom he trusts to perform responsible disclosure.
He says he doesn't even have the documents any more.
Snowden hasn't disclosed anything publicly... Greenwald et. al are doing the disclosing.
Greenwald has disclosed lots of different things including spying on Brazil, the European Union, Mexico, etc. No doubt, he may get around to China and Russia some day (if the documents are in the pile).
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
Actually they are supposed to be spying on *enemy governments*.
Problem is we dont have any more of those left, but bureaucracy doesnt know how to shut down when it is not needed. Instead they keep trying to make new enemies. And unfortunately succeeding...
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)
The 4th Amendment needs its own unyielding ideologically pure NRA type organization because if there are no limits on government power, eventually it will start brutalizing people.
Hello, this is the ACLU [aclu.org] calling, how can we help you?
*BEEP*
Howdy, this is the EFF [eff.org], how can we help you?
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)
Since we seem to have a group of moderators running around today that are ignorant of the functioning of the US court system, I'll restate.
Lower courts have the authority to rule acts of the Federal government unconstitutional and stop them. This case has little chance of being accepted by the US Supreme Court. It isn't proper procedure for it to start there, and it isn't the type of case that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over. This is a matter for the lower courts to start with. Any citizen or corporation that received a gag order from a court could challenge it in the same court, or appeal it.
A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court [supremecourt.gov]
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Hopefully this is clear, and modding me down doesn't change the law even if you don't like it.