Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Judge: NSA Phone Program Likely Unconstitutional 345

Posted by samzenpus
from the stop-listening dept.
schwit1 writes in with the latest on an U.S. District Court ruling over NSA spying. "A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency's phone surveillance program is likely unconstitutional, Politico reports. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon said that the agency's controversial program, first unveiled by former government contractor Edward Snowden earlier this year, appears to violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states that the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' 'I cannot imagine a more "indiscriminate" and "arbitrary invasion" than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,' Leon wrote in the ruling. The federal ruling came down after activist Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit in June over the program. The suit claimed that the NSA's surveillance 'violates the U.S. Constitution and also federal laws, including, but not limited to, the outrageous breach of privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the due process rights of American citizens.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge: NSA Phone Program Likely Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:
  • About time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Palin (1402501) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:14PM (#45707771)
    Now the NSA will appeal. Off to the Supreme Court it goes. About fucking time. It is time to enforce the fourth amendment. I hope there are many more fourth amendment challenges in the pipeline. The bill of rights is the only thing left to save us from government tyranny.
    • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:19PM (#45707853)

      Don't worry, even if they thought it wasn't below them to ignore this, the president's administration will make up an excuse to "justify" the agency's practices. Or come up with another dog and pony show of an "oversight" committee made up of people with a complete conflict of interest regarding privacy and constitutionality.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ackthpt (218170)

      The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.

      There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of sayi

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)

        by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:22PM (#45707895)

        If a President is going to have War Powers, shouldn't there be a war going on?

        Last I looked Congress are the ones that get to say when that is.

        • Sounds great in theory, but it's political naivety at best to assume that's the way to resolve the situation. Google for what happens when any politician dares to claim we're not currently at war in Iraq or Afghanistan. The American people often stand in the way of the obvious solution.

        • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:07PM (#45708433)

          If a President is going to have War Powers, shouldn't there be a war going on?

          Dude, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

          • by ackthpt (218170)

            If a President is going to have War Powers, shouldn't there be a war going on?

            Dude, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

            I think the general category is "Terrorists" and at least on specific one is "Al-Qeada", although "American Taliban", "Religious Extremists" and various other enemies of the State are used as needed. Should be a Bingo game - you get the park a peanut on a square each time one is mentioned in the news or in a press briefing.

      • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:26PM (#45707951)

        "The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.

        There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of saying, what you think it should be and how it is is not always clear cut. "

        Wow. You have a pretty bizarre view of the Constitution. I suggest you sit down and actually read it sometime. Soon.

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)

        by GodInHell (258915) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:34PM (#45708027) Homepage
        The constitution says that the Congress shall have the power: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" which sounds a lot like "war powers" to me. I must have missed the part where the Article I grants the president the power to declare war (hint, it doesn't).
        • No president has. They declare "police actions" and bypass the constitution. The federal government basically suspended the constitutional oversights on themselves during the civil war, and never saw the need to abide by it again.

        • I must have missed the part where the Article I grants the president the power to declare war (hint, it doesn't).

          Of course it doesn't. Article I grants powers to Congress. Article II that grants powers to the President.

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NatasRevol (731260) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:42PM (#45708121) Journal

        When a black body like the NSA oversteps their bounds, especially to the degree they’ve admitted, much less been reported, then they need to be stopped.

        The real problem is this. You can’t do anything about it. You can elect all the new politicians you want. You can chuck out anyone you want in elected positions. The NSA isn’t elected, and isn’t going anywhere. And does know ALL the skeletons of those who are elected. So that they can be manipulated to not looking into the NSA activities.

        THAT’S why they need to be stopped.

        • by mugnyte (203225) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:04PM (#45708387) Journal

          While I don't (yet) believe the NSA is blackmailing the rest of the government to obey its wishes, I don't think they are "going to be stopped" in any meaningful way. Instead, I think we're going to pick ever-more-hair-splitting rules for technology's use in policing. The reason effect is that they'll just go underground for a bit.

        • by Bartles (1198017)
          The NSA operates at the direction of the President. When they overstep their bounds, it is the President's duty to stop it, and fire those responsible. It is long past the time to actually start blaming the person responsible for the NSA's actions.
      • The wiggle room I'll give the NSA and other "Security" Agencies is enough to make the noose around their neck comfortable, but not enough to take it off completely. What the NSA has done, is created enough wiggle room to take the noose off their necks, and put it on everyone else's necks.

        They say they "only" collect Metadata, well isn't that fine and dandy! I'm in the industry, and given enough metadata, you can reconstruct the data you need, and often better detail than it was before. And in the case of Da

      • There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President.

        Throughout history, there tends to be a problem when the president can do whatever the fuck he wants without legislative oversight...

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)

        by DarkOx (621550) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:04PM (#45708385) Journal

        There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President.

        Section. 8.

        The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

        To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

        To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

        To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

        To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

        To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

        To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

        What Constitution are you reading? The congress pretty clearly has the power to declare or not a war.

      • by msauve (701917)

        There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President.

        Uh, have you actually read the Constitution?

        Congress has the power to

        "provide for the common Defence ... declare War, ... raise and support Armies, ... provide and maintain a Navy ... To make Rules for the ... Regulation of the land and naval Forces ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to ... suppress Insurrections and repel In

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:07PM (#45708447)

        There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President.

        Actually the constitution gives congress the ability to declare war. You are actually thinking about the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which allows the president to have 48 hours to notify congress that he committed armed forces to military action and they can't operate more than 60 days without authorization from congress or a declaration of war.

        Anyway the War Powers Resolution wasn't used to authorize the NSA to collect phone data. It was explicitly given by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001. This surveillance program was enacted by congress and approved by the president. This is not a case of executive power being abused, instead this is an abusive law.

    • Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)

      by i kan reed (749298) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:22PM (#45707883) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, last time this question got to the supreme court, the court's reaction was "you can't prove you're being spied on, go away"

      And of course, we were being spied on, and the courts refusal to grant standing is one of many extremely poor choices by the court in the Bush years(they didn't stop with bad decisions when Obama arrived, not saying that).

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by asylumx (881307) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:47PM (#45708179)

        one of many extremely poor choices by the court in the Bush years(they didn't stop with bad decisions when Obama arrived, not saying that).

        I'm glad some people recognize that this isn't anything new. When the Patriot Act passed, many of us saw this coming but it seems like all the outcry now is just too late. It was obvious that the gov't would data mine the entire population to accomplish their goal, and it was obvious that the data they were collecting and mining would end up getting misused by people all over the chain of command. Lo and behold, that is exactly what is happening.

        This does need to go to the supreme court, and hopefully the court will see reason. I'm not sure what I expect to happen, though, since (as you mentioned) both parties have shown that this kind of surveillance is something they support.

    • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:23PM (#45707913) Journal

      Off to the Supreme Court it goes.

      To get rejected for lack of standing, or some other legalistic mumbo jumbo.

      • "To get rejected for lack of standing, or some other legalistic mumbo jumbo."

        No. There is no "lack of standing" excuse anymore. We now have proof beyond doubt -- many times over -- that the NSA's activities have chilled speech and caused corporations to go out of business.

        • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Hatta (162192) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:37PM (#45708053) Journal

          No. There is no "lack of standing" excuse anymore.

          And who is going to correct SCOTUS if they choose to pretend that there is?

          We now have proof beyond doubt -- many times over

          We also have a SCOTUS that has been stuffed with authoritarian sycophants.

          • "And who is going to correct SCOTUS if they choose to pretend that there is?"

            Everybody.

            Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two. It is not immune from image problems (especially in recent years, when it has demonstrably failed to do its job again and again and again).

            They just could not get away with that ruling, because everybody knows that it would be a lie.

            And just in case you hadn't read your Constitution lately: SCOTUS judges are not "appointed for life." They are appointed during "good behavior". If they exhibit something that is n

            • Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)

              by Desler (1608317) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:49PM (#45708197)

              Everybody

              Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two. It is not immune from image problems (especially in recent years, when it has demonstrably failed to do its job again and again and again).

              How cute and naive. The Supreme Court is immune to "image problems". Unless any of the justices have done something that Congress has decided they should be impeached for then they will face no consequences.

              • "How cute and naive. The Supreme Court is immune to "image problems". Unless any of the justices have done something that Congress has decided they should be impeached for then they will face no consequences."

                *I* am naive? That's hilarious.

                Try this on for size. [wikipedia.org]

                As James Madison famously wrote about in his Report of 1800, the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government. Asserting otherwise is just plain ignorant.

                • And yet the only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached was in 1805.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase [wikipedia.org]

                  Oh, and they acquitted him.

                • by Hatta (162192)

                  the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government

                  All three branches are immune from politics, when it comes to national security issues. There's a reason why blatantly illegal practices have near unanimous support amongst our representatives, and it's not because our government is a functioning democracy.

            • Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Hatta (162192) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:00PM (#45708321) Journal

              Everybody.

              Oh aren't you adorable. Since when has even a significant percentage of "everybody" cared about adherence to the Constitution? The reality, if you actually talk to people, is that the vast majority of Americans would applaud SCOTUS for helping keep us safe from terrorists.

              Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two. It is not immune from image problems (especially in recent years, when it has demonstrably failed to do its job again and again and again).

              Image problems, no. If a SCOTUS justice embarassed the government, say by pulling a Rob Ford, he'd be impeached no problem. But no SCOTUS justice will ever be impeached for rubberstamping policies approved by both other branches of the government, even if they are blatantly unconstitutional.

              They just could not get away with that ruling, because everybody knows that it would be a lie.

              Both the President and Congress are perfectly happy living with that lie. The American people are too divided by party politics to even notice that they are being conspired against by both parties. SCOTUS would absolutely get away with that ruling.

              And just in case you hadn't read your Constitution lately: SCOTUS judges are not "appointed for life." They are appointed during "good behavior". If they exhibit something that is not "good behavior" (as such a ruling would be), they CAN be removed from office.

              And who is going to do that? The same Congress that has failed to censure James Clapper for perjury?

            • Supreme Court: "We don't recognize the standing of this 'Everybody' of which you speak. Next!"

            • by fnj (64210)

              Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two.

              But it's NOT like the other two, is it. Congress and the President can be overruled by the Supreme Court, but not the other way round. There is absolutely no recourse whatsoever to a Supreme Court decision, no matter how transparently false and arrogant. There is no appeal, period. Supreme Court justices serve FOREVER without accountability. The only way they can ever come to an end is (1) death, (2) voluntary retirement or resign

              • "There is absolutely no recourse whatsoever to a Supreme Court decision, no matter how transparently false and arrogant."

                Spoken like someone who is truly ignorant of history. Nothing personal meant. That is the same bullshit that I learned in public school. But when I started to actually study history, OUTSIDE of school, I learned many things that opened my eyes.

                There *IS* an authority to fall back on, outside Supreme Court decisions. That authority is the States. The States delegated this authority to the Supreme Court. They did not set the court up as the "final" arbiter of Constitutionality. That power is reserved to th

        • by Qzukk (229616)

          and caused corporations to go out of business

          That opens the door to the SCOTUS's other favorite "get out of hard decisions free" card: they can declare the point moot since their decision won't un-bankrupt the corporations.

          • "That opens the door to the SCOTUS's other favorite "get out of hard decisions free" card: they can declare the point moot since their decision won't un-bankrupt the corporations."

            No, it doesn't, because they don't have any way around the "chilling speech" issue.

      • I'm pretty sure they can't use the "no standing" argument anymore since Snowden documents showed the NSA was actually doing it.

        • by Desler (1608317)

          And who is going to stop them exactly? That's before you get to the fact that the Supreme Court is in no way forced to hear the case even if there is standing.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      About fucking time. It is time to enforce the fourth amendment.

      It isn't that the 4th Amendment isn't being enforced, but rather that there are conflicting ideas about how the 4th Amendment applies. I'm sure you think you know, but is yet to be seen how the courts will decide. It isn't 1789 anymore, and the 4th Amendment has been applied to a lot of situations and there is a lot of legal history (precedent) as to how it applies. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely that they will win at the trial court and lose on appeal. Only time will tell.

      The fact that ther

      • Here is the text of the fourth amendment:
        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.

        It is totally obvious that "papers, and effects" would include digital documents such as phone calls, texts, and any computer file. The c

    • I expect that the Court will only prohibit warrantless access to the phone call's content, the conversation. The the two phone numbers, a timestamp and a duration will probably still be accessible without a warrant.
      • To be clear, "the Court" is referring to the US Supreme Court. I believe they have authorized "metadata" in the past, addresses on envelopes.
  • by mythosaz (572040) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:15PM (#45707791)

    "That's nice."

    -NSA Press Secretary

  • by schneidafunk (795759) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:18PM (#45707839)

    FTA: He said was staying his ruling pending appeal "in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues."

  • by TheGeneration (228855) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:18PM (#45707841) Journal

    "NSA decides it doesn't care what the constitution says and keeps on doing what it wants."

  • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:19PM (#45707849)

    And also that Edward Snowden was a cheater!

  • Oh wait, he appointed Leon... Now I don't know who to hate, maybe it will just have to be the whole government!
  • from TFA.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "But in his a 68-page, heavily footnoted opinion, Leon concluded that the government didn't cite a single instance in which the program 'actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack.'"'

    Who wants to bet there'd be a false flag coming soon, that the gov't miraculously stops via this very program? Hrmmmm...

  • In a New York Times article, [nytimes.com] Snowden reacts, stating:

    "“I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”"

  • They do what they want. Need court order? No problem, they just set up a secret court, that spits out authorizations, in secret, when they want it, they can even back date it.

    Oh, this shit is all illegal? No worries, nobody will go to jail. They'll just say it was to catch them pedophiles.
  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:32PM (#45708013)
    What's the difference? There is no difference. Someone revealed that crimes were being committed by the government. At great personal and professional cost. That person is a hero. This is as stupid simple as morality gets.
  • Maybe there is hope for the Yangs and the E Pleb Neesta yet.

  • See, if they had just done it with proper warrants, even if just thru the secret FISA court, it would be fine. Now they're gonna get their ass rammed by constiutional challenge..

    And deservedly so.

  • hmmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jafac (1449) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:37PM (#45708059) Homepage

    I reckon it's about time for another "crisis" to remind us all why we need to keep the NSA apprised of all of our private activity. For our own safety, of course.

  • by Lucas123 (935744) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:37PM (#45708061) Homepage
    So you're telling me a secret program authorized by a secret court to ubiquitously collect private information about U.S. citizens was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ constitutional rights?

    The hell you say.

  • You mean like DUI checkpoints?

    • Re:Arbitrary? (Score:4, Informative)

      by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:56PM (#45708277) Homepage Journal

      You mean like DUI checkpoints?

      Driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Most states issue drivers licenses as granting the driver the privilege of being allowed to drive on public (i.e., government built and owned) roads. If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads.

      DUI checkpoints have only been ruled unconstitutional when it was shown that cars being stopped were driven by members of identifiable ethnic groups. The stop itself was not unconstitutional but the uneven application of who got stopped violated "equal protection under the law."

      Cheers,
      Dave

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads."

        Drink the Kool-Aid much? The "state's roads" are part of the commons. They belong to everyone. The illusion that the state has to somehow grant me the privilege of being on public property is an outrageous fabrication. (Hint: Where is the public land where it's not a "privilege" to be there, in your estimation? Oh right, there isn't any...)

        • They are not restricting your right to be on the roads. They are restricting your right to operate dangerous machinery on the roads as a matter of public safety.

          There are many well known limits to rights arising from similar issues. It's really idiotic to think an absolute right to exercise one of these rights exists.

          One common example is that Freedom of Religion does not permit you to engage in ritual human sacrifice.

  • by Egdiroh (1086111) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:41PM (#45708103)
    All of the times when cases like this have gone the other way, the precedent cited was one about business dealings, which being voluntary, void your sole oversight over the details of those dealings.

    The problem with that argument as it pertains to cell phones, is that the government maintains a monopoly on the airwaves which it licenses out to cell providers. It would be like the government licensing out all roads to be toll roads and then getting to track your movements because they were part of a business dealing.
  • What is the Limit (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mugnyte (203225) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:52PM (#45708235) Journal

    If not this phase of technology used for National Security, there will be some other. In any case, what level of technology use by the government is safe or allowed? I suspect this issue/case is just one of a myriad of ongoing decisions to balance the use of technology for crime/safety while letting everyone (at least) feel like their privacy is respected.

    [it doesn't take much to envision a stability to just-appearing technology so that they become applicable in many potentially intrusive ways...drones hovering above public places using instant facial recognition to identify any person-of-interest, without need to publish why interest arose...infra-red cameras on streetlights to track who is in each home and when...ubiquitous vehicle-tracking, engine-disabling technology to capture any suspect in a vehicle...100% person-presence tracking]

    The technology is going to be everywhere, and it's understanding by the general populace is shrinking. The technocrats will provide the tools for the aristocrats and both will try to balance between appeasement and revolution by the rest of society. Choosing to avoid technology now will only handicap you. Some as-yet-unknown sci-fi authors will be heralded as prophets.

  • Full Text (Score:5, Informative)

    by SrLnclt (870345) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:22PM (#45708605)
    Read the judge's full ruling. [theguardian.com]
  • Listen to history (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:55PM (#45708955) Journal

    From TFCD: "Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constiution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware "the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power," would be aghast."

    The next time someone, seeking to expand the government's power, uses the meme "those founding fathers' ideas don't apply to our modern times", keep the above in mind. Their theories predict all this assholery with stunning accuracy. And that is due to studying history as hundreds of governments play out over thousands of years. Even the belief pure democracy won't fall prey to this is 100% contraindicated based on long-term history.

  • by PPH (736903) on Monday December 16, 2013 @08:37PM (#45709925)

    ... by the 1996 Telecom Act. Telephone metadata was changed from being the property of the caller* to that of the telecom. And that has subsequently been tested in courts, with decisions reaffirming the ownership of metadata by Ma Bell and her vile progeny.

    *With a statement in phone service tariffs of the need to access this data solely for billing purposes.

  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Monday December 16, 2013 @10:38PM (#45710745)
    It is 'likely unconstitutional' to the same degree that burning at the stake is "likely unpleasant".

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...