Judge Denies Administration Request To Delay ACLU Metadata Lawsuit 107
sl4shd0rk writes "Federal Judge William Pauley has dismissed an Obama Administration request to delay a hearing on Verizon/NSA data sifting. The ACLU has argued that the sifting is not authorized by statute and even if it were it would still be unconstitutional. The Obama Administration requested the delay on the grounds it needed more time to search through its classified material to determine what was suitable for disclosure."
See also the case docket. Motions must be filed by August 26th, and oral arguments begin on November 1st.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure this' actually very accurate.
Well that's it then. (Score:5, Funny)
In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.
It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait... those are real? (Score:2)
In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.
It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.
Okay, I was aware of "axolotl", but veeblefetzers [wikipedia.org] and potrzebies [wikipedia.org] surprised me. Wikipedia pages and all!
You can even ask google to convert "1 potrzebie" to metric [google.com].
+1 internets to you, sir!
(This is going into my WTF? that's real? list, alongside "Legends of Nascar" commemorative plates [ebay.com].)
Re: (Score:3)
In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.
It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.
Okay, I was aware of "axolotl", but veeblefetzers [wikipedia.org] and potrzebies [wikipedia.org] surprised me. Wikipedia pages and all!
You can even ask google to convert "1 potrzebie" to metric [google.com].
+1 internets to you, sir!
(This is going into my WTF? that's real? list, alongside "Legends of Nascar" commemorative plates [ebay.com].)
Both Donald Knuth and I are massive fans of the old Mad Magazine. This seems to be a Potrzebie Friday, if ever there was one. I'm building an inventory system and test data are Veeblefetzers, Potrzebies and Axolotls. For further research I may have to fish out my copy of Gasoline Valley.
This is all rather off-topic, but the spirit of the OP was to obfuscate in event anyone is (ha!) monitoring us.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job, your honor! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if we could just get the wheels of justice to turn quicker on this one. Every day this is delayed is potentially one more day before this nonsense is put to an end.
Though realistically, the NSA will keep doing it and just try harder to hide it. It's quite clear they operate outside of any actual level of control.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now if we could just get the wheels of justice to turn quicker on this one. Every day this is delayed is potentially one more day before this nonsense is put to an end.
Though realistically, the NSA will keep doing it and just try harder to hide it. It's quite clear they operate outside of any actual level of control.
They're probably already surfing the US Constitution, Bill 'o Rights and Magna Cum Arta for a loop de loop they can fly the next monitoring thing through. And both parties may wring their hands and wibble in public, but behind the closed doors they're all in bed together, watching us on their big screen TV and avin' a larf.
Re:Good job, your honor! (Score:5, Informative)
The Administration and NSA didn't care about the constitution before Snowden, they're not going to start now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Thats what the 2nd is for.
Drones incoming in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1
Oh, how cute. You thought that you'd be backed up by defecting members of the armed forces who put their country's ideals ahead of their military oaths. So far we've seen what, 6 of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, how cute. You thought that you'd be backed up by defecting members of the armed forces who put their country's ideals ahead of their military oaths.
Oh look, a /. AC who knows less about military oaths than a foreigner does. How sad, bet you don't know that the oathkeepers are exceptionally wide-spread in the US military as well.
Obligatory sarcasm (Score:1)
Wait, you mean it's not so we can go hunting?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the second amendment does not secure your right to hunt ducks or deer.
It does secure your right to hunt congressmen should there be an open season for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Minor verbiage nitpick here. It's not a "right" to hunt them which this protects. It's the right to properly equip yourself to do so in case it becomes necessary. You're absolutely right about that reason though in spirit.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the second amendment does not secure your right to hunt ducks or deer.
It does secure your right to hunt congressmen should there be an open season for them.
I think the 2A should secure a perimeter around the Capitol Visitor Center long enough for a few dozen cement trucks to dump their cement down the secret elevator and ventilation shafts going down to the classified FISA court facilities located under the Capitol Visitor Center and persist until the bubbles stop. Rinse & repeat for NSA domestic data storage facilities.
Publicly posting all available personal data of judges and their families that serve on the FISA court might also serve to reverse this ST
Re: (Score:3)
If only that would work. Unfortunately, when you show people in power that they're vulnerable too, they don't see the light and act for change -- they double-down. They decide that such acts are evidence that they need even more power.
It takes time and diligence (Score:2, Insightful)
to weave a web of lies that can't be demolished beyond reasonable doubt in the time frame of a court case.
Of course, it becomes easier when you can claim secrecy whenever the questions run close to a hole in the fabrication.
Pray to FSM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time someone abbreviates Flying Spaghetti Monster, and particularly when someone does it on /., I think they are talking about Finite State Machines.
His noodle is strong in this one.
it's (Score:1)
Should be "its" rather than "it's" in the summary.
The Constitution is clear on this (Score:5, Informative)
Government has to get a warrant in an OPEN COURT. It has to describe SPECIFICALLY the person or things to be searched and seized. Government has no rights, the People have ALL rights. Government has no more authority to collect everyone's e-mails than it does to send a black van down each street, pull the mail from everyone's mailbox and photocopy it...
I don't see any "Because TERRORISTS!", or "Because Someone doesn't like Obama" exceptions in there, do you?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Constitution is clear on this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Constitution is clear on this (Score:5, Insightful)
It's way past time for Americans to stop allowing judges to have the kind of absolute power they have right now. It's also way past time for Americans to accept by default orders handed down by government in general.
The Federal Government doesn't have rights. It has enumerated POWERS. The Constitution is written as such that they have those powers (plus extra ones amended in) and no more. If we want to put a stop to what the NSA and this unlawful Regime in DC are doing to us we need to INSIST that the government restrict itself to those enumerated powers.
Re: (Score:2)
What did you say? Something about Niki Minaj? Yeee, i like her....vista
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no provision in the US Constitution for Martial Law - a most inconvenient fact for those who wish to wield that power. As a result, they have traditionally taken to citing I:9, which does permit Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus in case of "rebellion or invasion." Since suspending Habeas Corpus and imposing Martial Law are kind of related it has been cited in this context.
The only case law on it I can recall is ex Parte Milligan, where the Supreme Court rationalised a power to declare martial law,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Because Someone doesn't like Obama" isn't the exception that the executive branch wants. The exception is "Because Someone Opposes or Embarrasses the FBI, CIA, DoD, and/or NSA".
It's easy to find people who absolutely hate Obama who the government has left alone. For example, there is nobody searching the world trying to capture Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.
By contrast, look at what the US is willing to do to get Edward Snowden: Violate Bolivia's sovereignty, and threaten trade sanctions against several countri
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we can continue to hang onto this 200 year old document and spout it as the clear and true gosepel though.
Indeed. The government should just ignore any part it doesn't like, because it's clearly 'outdated'.
Re: (Score:3)
The founders believed freedom was more important than individual life, so, yes, I believe they would stan
Re: (Score:2)
Anything else is unconstitutional, hence invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
So then... you are saying that digital information can be considered as physical, personal property?
No, but some information about us as citizens has been determined as being private. Would the founders have objected to England opening your mail, making copies of the contents and then sending the original on to it's destination? Of course they would have.
And copying of said information constitues as search and seizure?
It does indeed. See above example.
I guess that would make the RIAA's argument that copying is the equivalent of stealing true huh?
Steeling is not an illegal search. Someone copying digital files that are ALREADY PUBLIC is not garnering any private information about the content owner. These are 2 completely separate subjects. I think that even those
Star Chamber Nation (Score:2)
To be fair, I'm not sure this federal judge could have made any other ruling, knowing as he does that there is a secret court, with members chosen in secret by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and who do not have to face congressional approval, and that this secret court, which meets in secret in a $2.5billion dollar complex built UNDER the "visitor's center" in Washington DC, and whose power supersedes that of the actual Supreme Court, or Congress, or the President, and that that secret super-Court c
How about ALL of it is suitable for disclosure (Score:2)
Just three simple questions? (Score:2)
Does anyone know who owns AT&T?
Does anyone know if the same entity owns Verizon and AT&T?
Re: (Score:2)
They are both majority-owned (like most big corporations) by "mutual fund & institutional investors", which is another way of saying "Wall Street". Since many of the big Wall Street banks and brokerages are *also* owned by the same funds and institutions, effectively they form one entity with a single purpose: profit at any cost.
Thanks man. (Score:3)
Thanks judge person. America owes you a solid.
It is not cool that the Obama administration seeks to NOT have this conversation in public and with the public. This is a completely necessary conversation to have so we can all come to an agreement through the ancient device shared of understanding , which is pretty much the way free societies are held together .
It bothers me that a scholar of the Constitution , a highly intelligent guy and someone who additionally had the advantage of access to the best university, the best professors, the best curricula in the most developed nation at the most enlightened time in history doesn't get this and act upon it.
I understood when Bush was in office because what do you expect from an alcoholic guy who basically fell upwards his entire life and arrived at what age 50? with such poorly developed acumen of other people's character that he selected a sociopath for VP.
But with Obama it's clearly a case of to whom much is given, much is expected and he's failing by that measure far worse than Bush.
Where does that leave us in terms of hope for the future? It seems like these guys get into office and the financial gurus/charlatans like Greenspan and the operators in the establishment organizations like the CIA and the NSA are more than a match for them in terms of overwhelming them with specialized knowledge in domains the President is basically ignorant of. They have such a well developed - if inaccurate- POV that the President can't counter it and is basically led to say "OK, whatever you specialist think is best....". What else are you going to say when very large and complex systems you only have a layman's understanding of like the world economy or the details of national security are going to blow the fuck up if you decide wrongly?
Kennedy was the last President to call bullshit on this kind of coup via ready-made vision. It's up to the President to have at the ready , should he /she be elected, people whose broad judgement he or she trusts. El Prez needs to have selected these people either through reading their published works or through personal acquaintance or some other long running process going into the office. I am saying that as soon as they conceive of the idea of being El Prez in their imagination at age 25 or whatever, this should be a major preoccupation for them from that point forward.
What seems to happen is they look to people in government for advice at something like the last minute, as if their victory took them completely by surprise and they've got to do some hiring ! That just leads to insiders recommending insiders in what amounts to, as far as we or anyone else including the President knows, the latest iteration in a long played game of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
You cant' know everything; you have to outsource some part of your judgement, or at least you have to outsource some part of your bullshit detection subsystem.
Hard believe the transformation of Obama's POV since he's gotten into office. I guess it takes a Clinton-like character, someone who's *down*, or a Kennedy, someone who's not intimidated by the office , someone who either through self assurance or arrogance or hopefully properly placed faith in the rightness of her perceptions or what have you to be able to resist the Ready-Made Interpretation of Everything that's lying in wait for you like a cougar, the second you sit your ass down in the Oval Office.
Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure some laws are terribly written. But look at Obama and how he see the laws that are not terribly written. The the US Constitution, Bill 'o Rights and Magna Cum Arta have all turned in to what he wipes with.
Re: It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (Score:2)
Now if we could just do something about these voters who keep letting in president s...
Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.
BULLSHIT
Obama has NO problem violating the law when he wants to.
Delay implementing Obamacare despite what the law says? No problem.
Stop deporting illegal aliens despite what the law says? No problem.
Continue monitoring US citizens despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.
Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.
Law? Yeah. Obama cares so fucking much about the law he conducts "extrajudicial killings" of US citizens.
Don't post crap that Obama's just following the law when it's obvious the law means NOTHING to Obama. You just want to excuse Obama for doing things you probably excoriated Bush for.
Double standard much?
Re: (Score:1)
Very angry.
Oh an expert on the laws Obama has broken, eh. Care to cite which laws, which clauses? Or are we not actually a lawyer, just very angry?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh, so nothing specific at all. Just your impression of what you think the law says, and your interpretation of the constitution that is, notably, not backed up by the court system. What we have sucks but your feigned outrage directed at highly unspecific claims just makes you look stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
>Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.
Blame congress. They passed a law that wouldn't allow him the funds to move the prisoners to US soil.
Re: (Score:1)
Lindsey Graham in particular was very adamant that we maximize injustice in our country.
Re: (Score:2)
>Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.
Blame congress. They passed a law that wouldn't allow him the funds to move the prisoners to US soil.
how about blame canada? you know money isn't the real problem(it's not cheap to keep them there) - it's the conditions and legal trickery dead end route they took that's the problem.
not money.
besides he can executive order all kinds of funky shit when he feels like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding deportations, you should actually check the numbers on that. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/ [politifact.com]
"...If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell wel
Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow... fanboy much? If either of you still think there's any difference between Obama and Bush then YOU are the problem. Stop voting Democrat/Republican. They are the same party at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fun, the person who assumes I never vote third party, and that "both" sides are equally bad. Congratulations on your truly stupendous level of cynicism that also achieves nothing. We're all very impressed.
Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it, in a broken winner-take-all system encoded into a constitution written prior to the invention of game theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it
I also vote third party. And considering that *this* is what you have to show for voting for the D/RNC, I'm much more proud of having "nothing" to show for it. My nothing is better than your this.
Re: (Score:2)
You also have this to show for it, numbnuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fau (Score:2)
Well said, here's a couple of pennies.
The elephants and the donkeys are different on many minor issues (abortion, gay marriage - No offense to those concerned about such topics - I'm pro for both,the debate is a control mechanism. They are minor compared to what comes next). They differ a bit on some important issues such as immigration and energy.
But, when it comes to major issues such as overall economy, the financial industry, and the military-industrial complex, they are the same. And that is where i
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY! The parties only want one thing -- power. So they pick these issues that wouldn't give them any real additional power either way, take opposite sides on those, frame that as the entire debate, and throw us all in prison while we're not looking.
Re: (Score:1)
http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/49241.jpg
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's true that the vast majority of people that lived in ancient times lived and died in obscurity.
It's not true, however, that the Jesus of the fables was just another regular Joe that we would expect no one outside of his circle of followers to have taken notice of. Plenty of people that would have been less famous even then were nonetheless mentioned in some surviving document written by a contemporary. It seems awfully strange that a man who did signs and wonders, who astounded and confounded the wise a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no bias. Believing in Jesus is like believing in King Arthur, Beowulf, Llugh Lámhfhada, Da Yu, Krishna or Paul Bunyan.
The basis for non-belief is that the things they are said to have done are preposterous.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)