Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

An anonymous reader writes "Three out of five PCLOB board members are in agreement: The NSA spy programs are illegal.. Unfortunately, these lawyers are not in a position to act or make any changes, only to advise congress and the president. Could this be the start of change to come? 'According to leaked copies of a forthcoming report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), the government's metadata collection program "lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.'" Not surprisingly, the Obama administration disagrees.

Re:Duh

[ackthpt]

Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

  Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.

Sadly, more people are spending the morning texting each other over last night's arrest of a rich kid with poor self discipline.

Re:Probably won't have much affect

[SplawnDarts]

While this opinion is in no way binding, it may still be valuable. The courts have not weighed in on the various NSA activities with any finality. One district judge has indicated it's probably constitutional. One has indicated it's not. Public disapproval can still help sway the outcome when this dispute makes its inevitable way to the supreme court.

Re:Illegal eh?

[mark-t]

This.

What is the point of saying it is illegal at all?

So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.

Re:value of it critical to the Constitutional bala

[mrchaotica]

The Constitution is quite clear that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". However, you can't bear arms in the White House, and that's Constitutional. You have a right to bear arms. The government has a duty to protect the president. The usefulness ("furtherance of a legitimate government interest") is larger than the freedom cost of prohibiting carry in the White House and a limited number of other locations.

IMO, the reason that these things don't conflict is not because you don't have the right to bear arms everywhere you go, but rather because you don't necessarily have the right to go into the White House.