Response to post 1
A lot of ongoing debate has happened since your last blog post on the topic of NSA surveillance. A federal judge declared the NSA program unconstitutional, then a White House panel released its own report on the NSA program and now a different federal judge has declared it constitutional. Today (January 2nd) the New York Times and the Guardian issued editorials calling on the Obama administration to pardon Edward Snowden.
For response post, write a response to either the judge who ruled the NSA surveillance unconstitutional or to the judge who ruled it constitutional and explain what you agree or disagree with in their argument.
Your post should refer specifically to at least 1 quote the judge said.
This post is due on Friday, January 10th.
Labels: 4th Amendment, privacy
posted by maby-keirstead @ 10:19 PM
45 Comments:
There is no way that I can accurately describe how much I disagree with the ruling made by Judge Pauley. I have trouble fathoming how anyone could possibly think that the program is constitutional. The system in place is like a massive trawl net, it collects all of the data and then it is sorted out later. With just that statement I don't understand how the program could be constitutional. It is assuming Americans are guilty of something despite the vast majority doing nothing. It is also searching phone records and listening with no warrant. Judge Pauley stated, “This blunt tool only works because it collects everything.” The logic here shows how idiotic this ruling one. I guarantee you crime would go down if we put away anyone who commits a crime in jail for life. Watching every American and listening would also reduce terrorist attacks and crimes. This does not mean it doesn't violate the 4th amendment. The judge seemed to be justifying the program not answering the question as to whether it is constitutional. He also tried to appeal to emotions in his statement. He stated, “As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific.” Yes the September 11th attacks were bad, however we have no way of knowing whether the attacks would have been stopped if the system is in place. It also is not worth losing the foundation of freedom from the government that this country was built on simply to stop attacks that are rare to begin with. The fact that Judge Pauley tried to tug at emotions by including that piece about September 11th shows me that his argument is not a good one. Past events do not make a program constitutional or unconstitutional. Just because a horrible thing happened doesn't mean anything has to change. Bad things happen some times, it is a fact of life. Judge Pauley did note that if the program was unchecked it, "imperils the civil liberties of every citizen." The problem is that the program is not checked in the slightest unless you count secret courts and secret judges. I hope this programs comes before the Supreme Court who hopefully would have some sense as to what the Constitution was originally about and what it was designed to protect.
I agree with U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III’s ruling. I like to equate the current governmental phone call monitoring to a mother concerned about the well-being of her high school student. The mother believes that her daughter is once again talking to people who are dangerous and thinks her daughter is planning something that might harm a large amount of innocent people. Just like the government, the mother has a list of numbers that she knows are bad to see on her phone record. She does not listen in on her daughter’s conversation (just like the government doesn’t listen in on ours) because she does not want to completely invade her privacy, but she keeps a careful eye on the numbers just in case her suspicions are correct. Although the daugher did not directly ask for/approve of this action, by being a young member of her family, she should understand that obviously her mother is just looking out for her well being. We, as Americans, are the daughter. The government is our concerned mother, who we all might want to yell at sometimes, but is trying to protect us from something as terrible as 9/11 from happening again. As Pauley said, “The government learned from its mistake and adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world.” Although it would be great to never have to worry about this happening, and for the government to never need to investigate our lives, it is time to understand that terrorism happens every day in the world and sometimes you need to take drastic measures to protect innocent lives.
I also agree that “if the United States had the phone data collection program before 2001, they might have had a better chance at preventing the Sept. 11 attacks.” I don’t believe this would have worked in American society before the PATRIOT Act or new interpretations of the 4th amendment, but in theory it is true. Maybe it’s how I was raised or maybe I just think differently than most people, but on my “list of things I’m concerned with,” I place “terrorism” a large amount of places higher than I place “the government checking up on people to make sure they aren’t a terrorist.” We do not live in a utopia. We do not live in a world where everyone is a pacifist and the government has no reason to be concerned for our well being, and I’m pretty sure some people have that mindset. Maybe one day the NSA won’t need to check our phone records and one day we’ll be able to be offended by “invasions of privacy,” but for now I agree with U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III and his ruling.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2084040/doj-will-appeal-judges-ruling-against-nsa-phone-program.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/nsa-surveillance-supreme-court_n_4553990.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
I agree with Judge William H. Pauley III, who ruled that the NSA program was constitutional. On the 39th page of Pauley’s opinion there is a section with the title reading, fourth amendment. Pauley summarizes in his briefs the outcome of both Katz v United States and Smith v Maryland which set a precedent for his decision. Pauley states that, “Smith involved the investigation of a single crime and the collection of telephone call detail records collected by the telephone company, nevertheless, the Supreme Court found that there was no legitimacy privacy expectation” (1). We just got done studying the Supreme Court, where we learned that once the Supreme Court made a decision it was handed down to lower courts to use as a precedent. Pauley states in his brief, “The Supreme Court did not overrule Smith, and the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts not to predict whether it would overrule a precedent” (1). Smith is a clear precedent and inferior courts are simply bound to precedent. This does not mean however, that the program can not be changed at all and steps should be taken by the other two branches to change the program to give it more oversight (2).
(1) http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-district-judge-pauleys-ruling-in-aclu-vs-clapper/723/
(2) http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/237794801.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I strongly disagree with the ruling made by Judge Pauley. The NSA and US government have lost all respect for the civil liberties granted to us in the fourth amendment. Judge Pauley said "the program... represents the U.S. government’s “counter-punch” to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network: (1). I disagree. I do not believe that the mass collecting, searching, and potentially listening to phone calls without a warrant justifies an effective "counter-punch" to al-Qaeda. I also didn't like how he referenced 9/11 and justified the program with that. Nobody could really truly know whether or not having this program would have stopped the attacks. In fact, according to Justice Leon, he stated " the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack" (3). All the program is doing is spying on Americans. One may argue that it is constitutional because it claims to be making the country safer from terrorist threats. I am wondering just how much Americans are willing to give up all in the name of safety. I for one will not sacrifice my privacy and liberties all in the name of a "safer" nation. The program has not proved to be safer at all. In fact it is only making Americans more fearful, skeptical, and paranoid of their government. The more they know, the less and less they approve (2). The government becomes dangerous when they claim that citizens deserve less privacy all for a safer nation. It is a lie, and when this happens the government is the real enemy. It would be nice if the program could be openly checked, but it's not besides the secret judges and courts that inspect it. I feel that if this comes before the Supreme Court that they will rule it unconstitutional. The founding fathers would be astonished at what is taking place here. I hope the truth about the NSA comes to the surface and that what they are doing comes to a halt.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-nsas-collecting-of-phone-records-is-likely-unconstitutional/2013/12/16/6e098eda-6688-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html
2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/08/the-more-americans-know-about-the-nsa-the-less-they-like-it-or-vice-versa/
3)www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
In response to Judge Richard Leon’s ruling, I agree with his reasoning and decision. Ultimately, the NSA has acted outside of its mandate and taken advantage of its authority (1). Not only has the agency broken federal privacy laws, according to the NSA’s own internal auditor, and undermined basic internet encryption systems, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying that the NSA has not been collecting data (1). While I do believe that the NSA is a vital agency and there must be some surveillance, their unchecked power, systematic law breaking, and lying must be addressed. As Judge Leon addresses on page 65 of his decision, there are “significant privacy interests at stake,” and that public interest is strong in this case given “the unprecedented scope of the NSA’s collection and querying efforts, which likely violate the Fourth Amendment,” (2). While some argue that the NSA’s surveillance has been an effective means of protection against terrorism, Judge Leon points out that “the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack,” (2).Congress authorized the NSA to obtain records “relevant to an authorized investigation” after September. 11, 2001 (3). The agency’s compilation of bulk data is not relevant, justified, or specific to an investigation and that is why I agree with Judge Leon’s ruling.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html
2) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
3) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/16/nation/la-na-nsa-lawsuit-20131217/2
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III I don’t think his argument for the wiretapping of 300 million Americans is completely ridiculous. One of the main reasons for him saying wire taping is constitutional is about national security. He says Metadata collection which collects virtually all Americans’ phone records, represents the U.S. government’s “counter-punch” to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network. WHAT!!! Newsflash their is no Al Qaeda network in America and even if their is there not 300 million strong. Think about that; even if there were a thousand Al Qaeda members in the U.S over 300 million innocent U.S citizens are being spied on by the government with no probable cause. Al Qaeda has next to know influence in america and this data collection is completely unconstitutional, because your pooling people you know for a fact aren’t part of national security with the very few people who are threats to national security. It’s and unreasonable search and seizure because their is know probable cause,and your not asking for these peoples permission. Metadata also has yet to thwart any terrorist attacks, and the information gained on people who aren’t threats to national security is kept showing the government is far overstepping their boundaries.
In response to Judge Pauly’s ruling that the NSA surveillance of citizens’ telephones is wholly lawful and constitutional, I disagree. The Washington Post article reports that the justification the government uses for the current surveillance is the ruling from a case from 1979, in which the Supreme Court declared that warrants are not necessary to have access to phone companies’ metadata, held for business reasons (1). According to an article from June, 2013, this information includes phone numbers of received and outgoing calls, the duration of each call, and the location of the callers (2). Apparently, because phone users are giving this information willingly to their phone companies, the third party, their expectation of privacy is no longer there (3). But I believe that there is still the First Amendment right to the freedom of assembly, and therefore, association, to consider. And while the people using their phones are giving their information to the third-party phone companies, that doesn’t mean they’re willingly giving their information out to the government.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/phone-call-metadata-information-authorities
(3) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
I strongly disagree with Judge Pauley’s ruling and frankly have trouble believing that even he believes the program is constitutional. I hold this opinion regardless of my views on the program itself as far as effectiveness, etc., as none of those things are at all relevant when it comes to a discussion of constitutionality. In making a decision about whether or not this program is constitutional, it should not matter how many terrorists the system catches (although so far that number is zero). The program directly contradicts the assumption that all American citizens are innocent before proven guilty, treating anyone and everyone as though they have already committed a crime not only without probable cause but also without so much as an inkling of reasonable suspicion. Even if the NSA does not act upon its abilities to collect information on innocent people, the fact that it even has that capability is going directly against the Constitution. Phone records and other such records are just as private as a person’s home or face-to-face conversations, and the government should not be able to access them without a warrant.
Judge Pauley claims that “this blunt tool only works because it collects everything,” but this argument is completely ridiculous: treating everyone like a criminal certainly is likely to have the effect of decreasing crime, but it is also an infringement on privacy and personal rights: a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Pauley’s entire opinion is spent on a discussion of the effectiveness of the program and why it is a good thing to implement. The issue, however, is not one of effectiveness: the issue at hand is whether or not the program itself is constitutional, an issue which Judge Pauley does not reference satisfactorily throughout his opinion. The main mention of civil liberties occurs when Judge Pauley notes that the program “imperils the civil liberties of every citizen” only if it goes unchecked. Unfortunately, the only checks that are currently in place are the secret courts, which are more or less irrelevant when it comes to the overall invasion of privacy. The fact that he brings up the September eleventh attacks just makes his argument all the weaker. Relying upon an appeal to emotions is never an effective way to make a point, but it is all the worse in this case because of two reasons. Firstly, we will never know if a surveillance program like the one the NSA is currently enacting would have prevented 9/11, so his argument there is invalid. Secondly, one again, the issue is not of effectiveness, and even if this system had been in place in 2001--and even if 9/11 had been stopped--people’s privacy would still have been unconstitutionally invaded to get to that point. Even if it were effective, it would still be unconstitutional.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/08/the-more-americans-know-about-the-nsa-the-less-they-like-it-or-vice-versa/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-nsas-collecting-of-phone-records-is-likely-unconstitutional/2013/12/16/6e098eda-6688-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html
3. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
4. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/16/nation/la-na-nsa-lawsuit-20131217/2
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html
If it is considered unlawful to search one man or woman suspected of doing something illegal without a warrant how can it possibly be legal to monitor every single phone call made in the US from a small child to a elderly woman? I do not agree at all with Judge William Pauley on his decision that the NSA’s monitoring can be thought of as constitutional. The system collects phone records and sorts through them later paying no attention to its obvious invasion of privacy. This goes completely against the fourth amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures because listening in on a phone conversation without that persons consent let alone knowledge that it’s happening is completely unreasonable. “-a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data.” This is what Judge Pauley said about the NSA’s tracking of phone calls. He points out that by doing this the government can locate terrorists and stop them before they strike. While I can understand the reasoning and logic behind this and can slightly agree with it, there is still a huge ocean of people having their fourth amendment right stripped from them. It doesn’t seem right that the government can intrude our privacy whenever they feel the need to that’s what the constitution is for to protect the people. Judge Pauley also commented that if there were no checks on the system it, "imperils the civil liberties of every citizen." The thing about it is there are really no checks on the system it invades everything and everyone. Personally I hope the Supreme Court will shut down the monitoring of phone calls and put major restrictions on the NSA.
I agree with District Judge William H. Pauley III that the NSA's mass collection of telephone records is constitutional. They are not collecting the data to find and convict criminals, they are collecting phone data to stop future terrorist attacks, which is why it was considered legal under Section 215 of the Patriot Act (1). As Pauley said, after the 9/11 attack, the government "learned from its mistake", and is trying to fill the hole it exposed in the nation's defenses (2). He went on to say that the al-Qaeda attack "succeeded because conventional intelligence gathering could not detect diffuse filaments" that would have connected the dots to help prevent the attack (2). The data that the NSA is collecting in this particular case is simply phone numbers and the times of the calls (1). This is why I see it as constitutional and not an invasion of privacy as I would have had they had been recording the content of the calls. In addition, the program "collects everything," so it is not discriminating against or picking out any one group. If this program were being used to identify criminals unconnected with terrorism, that would, in my mind, be unconstitutional because it would only benefit a small group of people. But because this program can benefit the nation as a whole by looking for patterns connected with terrorists, I do not see this as an invasion of privacy, and therefore constitutional.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/justice/nsa-ruling/index.html
(2) http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/04-5
I agree with Judge Pauley’s ruling that the NSA’s collection of phone data is constitutional. The precedence established by Smith v. Maryland makes it clear that telephone metadata does not warrant the same protection as other information under the Fourth Amendment, as Judge Pauley argued. I agree with opponents’ assertions that other parts of this program like the secret courts and so on may not be legitimate; however, if this controversy concerns only the program that collected nothing but phone numbers, frequency of calls, and call duration, I don’t see how this can be construed as the blatant constitutional violation that some are making it out to be, especially considering that the Patriot Act allows the government to act exactly in this way. Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can force individuals and entities to give access to anything pertaining to “an authorized investigation…to protect against international terrorism or…intelligence activities” (1). It also gives the government the power to do this without any reason to believe that the individual in question is a criminal and collect information about the person without notifying them that they are being watched (1). I will admit that it is a little scary and Big Brotherish, but the morality of the program, its effectiveness, and whether or not it should be in place at all are completely separate issues. As Judge Pauley said, these are matters “for the other two coordinate branches of Government to decide” and have nothing to do with the program’s constitutionality.
1 https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215
I completely disagree with Judge William Pauley's ruling that the program does not violate any part of the Constitution. Not only does it violate privacy rights of the 4th amendment, but it is an irrational invasion of the privacy that every American is entitled to. According to U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who finds the program unconstitutional, the plaintiffs in this case have "adequately demonstrated irreparable injury" (1). In his argument, Judge Pauley references the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland, in which police went without probable cause or a warrant to Smith's telephone company and installed a device that enabled them to gather a list of the phone numbers that Smith had previously had contact with. They then used this against him to convict him of a crime. In the case, the Supreme Court decided that the actions of the police did not violate Smith's privacy because he had knowingly exposed his calling information when he signed up with his telephone company (2). Pauley reasons that the federal government's collection and five year storage of the calling data of millions of Americans is not unconstitutional because the government is simply doing the same thing that they had done during Smith, only on a much larger scale (2). Ultimately, he believes that the 1979 case should still be maintained as a precedent for how the far the government is allowed to infringe upon the privacy rights of Americans. However, I believe that the case should be disregarded because public use of telephones in the United States has dramatically increased over the past thirty years. Additionally, Pauley claims that the Patriot Act, which allows the government to conduct anti terrorism surveillance in the U.S. and abroad, prevents the government's wiretapping actions from being held unconstitutional. But upon further inspection of the Act, it was made clear to me that in order to collect information, the government has to demonstrate that it is relevant to an international terrorism investigation (1). I find it extremely hard to grasp how the government could possibly believe that violating the privacy rights of millions of American citizens in this way is part of an anti terrorism investigation. The government should be focusing on actual terrorists and spies, not innocent Americans.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/is-the-nsas-bulk-telephon_b_4549449.html
I agree with U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III with the fact that NSA collection of phone data is constitutional. Not many people would take this side of the argument, but I see the logic that Judge Pauley made in his points. Pauley said that, “the NSA represents the U.S. government’s ‘counter-punch’ to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network and does not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure”. I agree with this point. I feel like the government is trying to help prevent another 9/11 by listening in on conversations to investigate if any call is suspicious and needs to be investigated. Therefore, the government isn’t violating the fourth amendment, but just keeping its ear out for any terrorists wanting to cause harm to America. Pauley agrees, as do I, with the assertion that “if the United States had the phone data collection program before 2001, they might have had a better chance at preventing the Sept. 11 attacks”. Pauley boldly adds as a personal comment that “This blunt tool (listening in on conversations) only works because it collects everything.” I agree that this is a very helpful tool that the government has and only advances the safety of American citizens. I understand how people wouldn’t want the government listening into their private conversations, but this rare tool that America has only protects America by finding any suspicious phone calls that could harm the future of America.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, now, I do have to say, I quite agree with what Justice Leon had to say. I never could really pin down what constitution detail the NSA were violating, but that judge did it for me. “Judge Richard Leon says the sweeping NSA collection of U.S. phone metadata constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment” (1). That right there is wholly correct, no need to understate the level of agreement found here. The fact that the NSA collected phone data from everyone, even those who did not present a “clear and present danger”, of which there are many, is a wee bit, how should we put it, lawbreaking. Searching for terrorists and other threats to the USA is not a good enough reason, especially with how much of a dunce these fellows seem to be. I am not at all surprised by their lack of results. One does have to remember that these are the guys who tried to use World of Warcraft to detect terrorist tendencies, and then had to form a group devoted to getting them to stop reporting on each other. If intelligence was part of their acronym, they’d become the nation’s next favorite oxymoron. They’re ineffective, more blundering than the United States as a whole, and overfunded. There’s lots of money going to their employees, and given the results, I do think it is time to pull the plug, pop open the drain, and generally axe this program, if some form of punishment isn’t more readily available.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
I agree with Judge Pauley III and his ruling that the NSA’s collection of information legal. Although many feel like their privacy is being invaded, and it is being invaded, the safety of the American people is at stake here. As said in the article, the information sweeps that the NSA has been doing regularly is not an investigation of the content of the phone calls as many thought at first but the data records of which numbers are being called and for how long. It was Pauley’s opinion that the degree of privacy the fourth amendment and the 1979 case Smith v Maryland that the American people are in possession of by law is not being violated by the NSA. Acting to prevent acts of terrorism is what the country needs and the NSA is a viable option for the United States. As Pauley himself states, “This blunt tool only works because it collects everything.” I agree with his statement that a wide net is the only thing that can work in a situation like this with such a vast population. I also agree with Pauley’s statement that if the NSA goes unchecked it could “imperil the civil liberties of every citizen.” A system like the NSA does not perfect and government organizations have in the past gone corrupt with too much influence and power, especially with the privacy of the American people at hand. So I do agree that the program is constitutional due to the lack of content being invaded and because it is currently the best option for fighting terrorism in the United States but I think that the NSA itself should be watched and checked regularly to keep the privacy entitled to the citizens by the Fourth Amendment safe.
To a Judge Richard Leon, I say “bravo;” It is all too easy to bend to the will of the government, even when the constitution is at stake. Judge Richard Leon ruled in a case, in the face of the Snowden scandal, and said that the government use of phone tapping is unconstitutional. The constitution was not created so that it could be disregarded when things got tough. The constitution was created to be tough, to have a voice for the meek and those who cannot stand up against the government. Nor should the constitution be disregarded because of a potential danger. The constitution was meant to protect the people from their government, not to be disregarded the minute fear set in. Not to mention that there is little evidence that shows that the phone records actually help the US government. In the words of Judge Leon, “...Most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics…(1)” If its not helping and its not constitutional, why is it even happening?
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf
I disagree with Judge William H. Pauley III’s opinion. I do not think that the Actions of the NSA was constitutional. NSA’s collection of U.S. phone data is violating the 4th Amendment. Judge William H. Pauley III states that this program would help “counter-punch to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network.” I do not agree with his statement because I do not believe that collecting phone calls and searching information will be effective enough to prevent attacks. I also do not think that collecting all of this data is crucial. I would rather that they only collect data if they have suspicions on a person or if they recorded the data on content to try to limit the attacks (1). Judge William H. Pauley III’ said that if this program was available before 2001 then there would have been better chances of the terrorist attacks to not occur. I disagree with this statement also because we don’t actually know if this program would have been effective on 9/11 to prevent the attacks. It is hard to say if this program would have made a difference so I do not think that this was a valid argument for him to make. Judge William H. Pauley had also stated that the NSA program does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is another statement that I disagree with the judge. The judge had also stated that this program “only works because it collects everything.” I strongly disagree with this argument. I believe that there are better and more effective ways of trying to eliminate terrorist attacks than recording cellphone data. Technology has dramatically changed over time and the privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment need to be changed to fit with today’s society. I agreed with the Judge Richard Leon’s statement instead on how advances in technology and the usage of cellphones show that the Maryland decision no longer holds. If this comes before the Supreme Court I hope that they will come to the conclusion that this program is unconstitutional.
1.http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/opinion/slobogin-nsa-spying/
I agree with the judge who ruled the NSA constitutional. I feel that part of people’s anger about this issue comes from a lack of information. Many people feel that the NSA tapping phone lines and listening to private conversations is a violation of privacy. Whether this is or isn’t is out of the question, however, because the NSA records only the numbers that Americans call and the duration of those calls, not the content (1). I don’t believe that is an invasion of privacy, and there is a massive difference between recording somebody calling somebody else and recording their entire conversation. I also feel like, although nobody likes these measures, they are necessary to protect against terrorism. As judge Pauley wrote, “The government learned from its mistake and adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world” (1). The governemt is doing this to protect people, and although people may not like it, these actions are far preferable to another 911. As judge Pauley also pointed out, there is Supreme Court has released a precedent with this issue, Smith v. Maryland which stated citizens right to privacy did not extend to phones and a warrant was not necessary to obtain this information. Therefore, those fighting the NSA gathering call records have no constitutional backing. My greatest disagreement with those against the NSA is they believe the government knowing who we call is harmful to them in some way. I can’t see any way how this information can lead to harm for citizens, especially those who haven’t committed any crimes. The government isn’t out to get you; they actually are doing all in their power to protect you without having somebody follow you around all day.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
Judge Pauley justifies the NSA's collecting of "bulk telephony metadata" as a reasonable search in response to the events of 9/11. As he explains, "The Government learned from its mistake and adapted to confront a new enemy; a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world"(1). The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but is vague as to what qualifies as unreasonable. This ambiguity gives it a high degree of flexibility, which has fortunately allowed it to remain relevant into the 21st century. We must understand that the U.S. needs to be able to adapt to the threats that exist in the modern era. I do not, however, agree with Judge Pauley. The collecting of the digital communication data of virtually everyone in the U.S. by the NSA is not the proper response to the threats of today. The increased security in airports is sufficient to prevent another tragedy like that which occurred on 9/11. Unless the NSA shows that the program has been successful in stopping any potential security threats, the measures they have taken can be viewed as unnecessary and therefore an unreasonable waste of resources.
1.http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-district-judge-pauleys-ruling-in-aclu-vs-clapper/723/
While I would like to believe that the NSA surveillance is unconstitutional, I must disagree with Judge Richard Leon. The major precedent involved for this case is Smith v. Maryland, in which a pen register was installed without a warrant in a man’s home phone in order to keep track of the numbers he dialed (1). The decision in this case was that the man had no reasonable expectation of privacy for the numbers he dialed as he knowingly gave this information to his telephone company, and it is generally known that telephone companies keep records of such things (1). Both Judge Leon and Judge Pauley recognize this fact in their opinions and that under this precedent “the Bulk Telephony Metadata Program is not a search” and thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment (2). While Judge Pauley uses this to justify his decision, Judge Leon simply states, “I disagree (2).” The bulk of Judge Leon’s legal argument is that he does not believe in the Smith decision and that it is now void due to advancements in technology and the changing times (2). However, judges are supposed to base their decisions off of the precedent of Supreme Court rulings, not necessarily their own personal beliefs or speculations. Thus under the current history of law, I have to reluctantly admit that the NSA surveillance is technically constitutional.
1) http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-district-judge-pauleys-ruling-in-aclu-vs-clapper/723/
2) http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf
I find it a complete waste of time that so much focus has been put on the constitutionality of controversial NSA activity. Judge Richard Leon, in a recent ruling, declared the NSA’s actions to be unconstitutional. Hearing of this decision, I only thought of how insignificant I think the ruling is. In my opinion national security is the ultimate trump card, so the fact that the judge laid down the “unconstitutional” card is meaningless - national security wins. I have no doubt that great amounts of time and money will be put into this debate and a clear consensus will be hard to reach. However, I think that it should be agreed that the NSA spying activity, out of context, is unconstitutional. I don’t know about the rest of Americans but I consider my phone calls to be a private manner (as evident by some of the weird things I’ve said on the phone), making this situation a Fourth Amendment issue. For those who believe it is not an invasion of privacy well then clean up the guest bedroom because your house seems like a prime location to house government agents if the need arises. Taken in context, however, the activity is justified. If in the course of protecting a nation certain constitutional provisions are temporarily suspended, then so be it. It would be hard to enjoy those rights if we were casualty victims of an attack. Though I don’t think constitutionality should play a large role in this manner, I chose to respond to Judge Leon because in his 68 page ruling he shares valuable insight on the matter, “in light of the significant national security interest at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal (1).” I believe the final decision on this matter should reflect this stance.
1. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf
I agree with Judge Richard Leon’s ruling that NSA’s collection of phone records is unconstitutional. He stood up for the American people’s right to privacy. He ruled that the NSA’s collection counts as unreasonable search and seizure. The American people are protected from this by the fourth amendment (1). These searches are looking into ordinary Americans; many times there is no reason to suspect they are a terrorist. Even though they often justify their actions through the Patriot Act, I think they are stretching it. If they suspect someone is a terrorist they should get a warrant for the information. They can keep the technology for easy access, but they cannot collect it without a cause. That is clearly stated in the fourth amendment, you need probable cause. I also agreed with the judge’s interpretation that Smith v. Maryland is a different situation and should not be compared. You cannot truly compare the technology in 1979 with that of today (1). The advances in technology have been massive. The court needs to reinterpret things to the level of today’s technology, not to the level more than thirty years ago. Finally, the government’s defense is that they are protecting the American citizens. However, what is the gain from this invasion of privacy, studies show not much. “The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government,” Judge Leon writes in his ruling (1). There is an “utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics” (2). This invasive program is not even really protecting anyone, so why should our privacy be compromised for something ineffective. It has not made America any safer. Overall, I applaud Judge Leon for helping the American people gain their right to privacy by calling the NSA’s collection unconstitutional.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge
I disagree with Judge Pauley’s ruling. I think that he avoided the question about how the NSA surveillance on cell phones is violating the 4th amendment. At least in the article it doesn’t state that he mentions how it doesn’t violate the 4th amendment. He just says that the actions are justifiable because they could have prevented something and they are protecting us. Justifiable is an opinion, while the constitution, though it can be interpreted differently, is written down on paper. How can one judge say that the NSA is doing things unconstitutional, but the appeals judge says that it is definitely constitutional. The NSA is not using a warrant to gather all of this data, which is the exact same as a search and seizure. Sure they are basing the actions on the Patriot Act and a prior court ruling, but the constitution is the law of the land. I think the NSA also violates other amendments in the bill of rights as well. “Innocent until proven guilty” seems to not be the case when 300 million people are treated as guilty by being monitored. Even though this is a lot more slim, you could also argue that the government is seizing your property by using the speaker or camera without paying you. Phone spying is very similar to 1984, though not nearly as bad as in that book. It could get worse though, They can basically hijack your cell phone at any time, which leaves room for abuse by the individuals sitting behind the machines. The Judge states that “This tool only works because it collects everything”, (1) but I would guess that the terrorists that are planning an intricate plot would either be able to find a way around the security measures, or avoid using the technology the NSA surveys. Which makes the method ultimately ineffective because the people who truly want to harm our country will find a way, and we will get all of our privacy taken away. It is not really taking the initiative in engaging the people we are supposed to be at war with, they have to make the first move and our government just responds . I do not agree that this could have prevented any of the 9/11 attacks because not many people had cell phones back in 2001, and it was probably pre-planned in person back in the middle east. I don’t think the judge is right on his justifications, and I am sure that the cell phone hijacking is unconstitutional.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
When it comes to the ruling of the NSA surveillance, I disagree with Judge Pauley’s ruling that it was constitutional (1). I will admit that he did have reasonable grounds for his decision though. He noted that before Sept. 11, the NSA did have a man as a suspect for plots of terrorism. However, they were unable to legally obtain the man’s phone number and therefor thought he was out of the country when he infact was here planning an attack (2). I accept that as a viable reason because in that case it could’ve prevented a catastrophic event. But the surveillance of Americans is a direct violation of our rights. I believe the wiretapping violates our Fourth Amendment right of protection against “unreasonable government searches and seizures”(2). Though the NSA has not been forthcoming about the amount of people that they looked into, but it can be assumed that not all of them are threats. I think it becomes unreasonable when it becomes something big enough that the NSA is refusing to admit how many were under surveillance. We should be able to trust our government to protect us, but at the same time we should be able to feel safe in our own privacy, or I suppose lack thereof. Because of this, I’m inclined to agree with Judge Leon ruling that the NSA crossed the line and their actions were unconstitutional (3). This was obviously a “systematic and high tech collection” of personal information of American citizens. Something this well planned and secretive couldn’t have overlooked the possibility that it may be viewed as unconstitutional. If they went through so much work to hide it, they must have felt some guilt over it. I can understand how the judges could have conflicting views. Both side’s arguments have merit to them. I myself am only slightly in favor of Judge Leon’s rulings, mostly because I believe that Americans do have a right to privacy from the government. Overall, the decision was tough but when it’s all boiled down, privacy was invaded and the NSA was at fault.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/justice/nsa-ruling/
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?_r=0
3.http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is indisputable that what the NSA did was wrong and unconstitutional. I agree completely with Judge Richard Leon's ruling because like he said, "Turning to the efficacy prong, the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time- sensitive in nature (1)." The NSA has not made public how they have stopped a terrorist attack. Because of the lack of evidence, I believe that the NSA should be required to obtain a warrant before they hack into peoples' phones and spy on them without any evidence that the person is presenting potential harm to the general public. Citizens need to stand up for themselves to protect their own privacy rights and not allow the government to become Big Brother and watch our every move. We live in a country that prides itself on being the land of the free. With this illegal NSA spying, we the people, do not do not have our individual rights to privacy and as a result, our freedom for expression would be infringed upon. In addition, because the NSA has not made public any prevented terrorist attacks, it prompts me to believe that they are lying to the American people and that they have not prevented any major attacks. The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 caused our nation to live in fear of another attack. I believe that the government has used this fear to justify their illegal actions. Although I believe that the government's true intentions are to protect American citizens, I believe that they should do so within the confines of the law. It is unfair that the government believes that they are an exception to the law, but it is up to the American voters to remind politicians that they work for us, not the other way around. It is important that we remind ourselves that our great nation was founded on the central idea of freedom; which has attracted so many immigrants to this country over the years to either escape their past oppressive governments or to simply start a new life. This freedom to be independent is the pride and joy of America and we must protect this freedom, to uphold the United State's reputation as being the freest country in the world.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional
I agree with Federal Judge Leon wholeheartedly. He seems to be one of the few people noting key facts about the differences between the precedent case, Smith v. Maryland, and the current one. The judge states that even just the span of time that the information was taken is enough to set these two cases apart (the Maryland case collecting information in a much shorter time period). The precedent also uses the connection of operators to how phones are already non-private, something that does not connect with the use of cellphones, basically stating that the precedent is invalid due to the advancement of technology. I agreed with the judge with my previous response, and my agreement was even more solidified when he brought up the “efficacy prong” point, which stated that the Government never brings examples up of when the NSA data collection was necessary. If the NSA had even slightly proven how well this new method of finding criminals works I could maybe consider that the data collection could be seen as helpful. However, the NSA is basically just snooping through American’s phone information with dated precedent and gathering nothing of value, thus this whole fiasco should be interpreted as unconstitutional.
In response to what Judge Richard Leon said about how the acts of the National Security Agency, I would have to say that I agree with him on the facts and the reality of what he state. However, I disagree with what his ruling on the acts of the National Security Agency. I agree that since the beginning when the National Security Agency started collecting data, they have not been able to use that data to accomplish anything or stop any threats. “The Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack.” However, I disagree when he said that the acts of the National Security Agency were “unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” Because the National Security Agency does not look into the data unless they have reasonable evidence (1), I think that it is constitutional under the clear and present danger clause. Moreover, the data collected is not of the content, it is only the number, time, and the basic information.
1) http://nation.time.com/2013/08/01/the-surveillance-society/
l decided to respond to the ruling of the judge who considered the NSA’s collection of phone call data constitutional. I find his reasoning very interesting. It seems that his opinion includes three arguments: first, that it is necessary to collect the data to combat Al-Qaeda, second, that it is legal under the Fourth Amendment, and third, that it is legal under the Patriot Act.
I do not find his first argument compelling in justifying the collection of NSA data. To say that a program is necessary to the well-being of a country does not mean it is legal. I am confused as to why the judge included this explanation in his opinion, since it is seemingly irrelevant to the legality of NSA data collection. However, maybe this is something that judges do often and I am not aware of it.
As for the Fourth Amendment’s role in making NSA activities legal, I am skeptical of this as well. Perhaps I need to actually read Judge Pauley’s opinion to know what he is thinking, but the only way I could see the Fourth Amendment excusing the NSA is if Judge Pauley considers the data collection reasonable, rather than unreasonable, search and seizure because it is necessary to protect America from harm. Otherwise, it seems that the Fourth Amendment works against Pauley’s point, since there were no search warrants or probable causes involved in the NSA’s searches and seizures.
I am also unsure as to how a judge can use a piece of legislature (the Patriot Act) to justify government actions when the question is whether those actions are Constitutionally legal. Like the judge’s first point, this one seems irrelevant.
I am appalled by the ruling by Judge Pauley declaring the NSA program legal and constitutional. There is simply no evidence in the constitution to suggest that such actions are permitted, and the fourth amendment even restricts “unreasonable searches and seizures” conducted by the government. For me, collection of all citizens phone records does not seem reasonable to me. Maybe if NSA showed progress in stopping terrorist attacks, or showed the public what terrorists they have apprehended, the searches might seem more reasonable for our safety. But unfortunately, NSA has stopped very few terrorist attacks and does not seem like a good system for catching terrorists (2). Pauley seemed to think that the system was effective and said that “This blunt tool only works because it collects everything,” but how can he say that it works when it does not (2)? But that is not even the question, the constitutionality, not the effectiveness, was in question, and the Judge did not address the constitution as reason for its permissibility at all.
1-http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
2-http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-terror-plots-the-nsa-program-stopped/
In response to the recent court rulings regarding the NSA’s arguably liberal use of surveillance, I would have to say that I disagree with Judge Pauly’s decision. In the article, it states that he thinks that the NSA is constitutional, based on the precedent set by the 1979 court case Smith vs. Maryland. This case stated that it is constitutional for the government to collect basic phone data, which is arguably what the NSA was doing. I don’t think this case should be based on precedence, however, as times have changed drastically since 1979 (1). We have seen the large scale development and integration of cellular phones and other means of communication into our society, and I believe that that should be grounds to re-evaluate the problem, and base the ruling on the social concerns of today, rather than the social concerns of 1979. Precedence works for some cases, just not this one. I also don’t understand why so many people are saying that this practice is constitutional. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This program is indiscriminately taking in information, for possible use in discovering terrorist’s plots, but that technically is assuming that anyone they survey has the potential to be a terrorist, when that just isn’t true. The NSA needs no warrants, and they target everyone as criminals, so I don’t see how they have been struck down yet. Most people will argue that the NSA isn’t doing anything to physically harm them; they are just trying to make the world a safer place. Safer or not, I would rather live in a world fraught with uncertainty, than a world where the government is allowed to make their own rules and decisions that could impact me without my consultation first. When you start giving up your rights, you don’t get them back. I can definitely see the NSA getting a stamp of approval leading to bigger problems in the future, and I just don’t think that these are the morals we as a nation should be focusing on.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
This is a very delicate issues, and I find myself having trouble totally agreeing or disagreeing with one ruling. But the specifics of the cases being what they are, I agree with Judge Pauly's decision. That being said, I do not wholeheartedly support the NSA in any way, shape, or form. But since the question raised in these cases is about the collection of telephone metadata, I do agree with the ruling.
On the question of privacy, there is an argument that allowing for this type of data collection violates our 4th Amendment rights. I have a few problems with that claim. This case is about the fact that your telephone number, the number you call, and the duration of the call can be recorded. First of all, you probably already waived your right to that privacy when you signed your phone contract at the Verison store, whether you know that or not is your problem. Also, and yes this is an opinion, I believe that the benefit to having this information stored SOMEWHERE probably outweighs the cost. Anyone who watches CSI knows how important phone records can be. It can be your alibi that gets you off the hook, or the evidence that puts a murder in jail. I would view this type of data collection as unconstitutional if the data did anything besides sit in a data base. If this personal information were to be sold, or transferred in anyway, then yes, I would have a problem with that. I think that is the logic that most people jump to when the question of privacy arises. What are they DOING with this information? Well, as far as I know, nothing. I don't care if some random person knows that my 10 digit phone number called another 10 digit phone number for 5 minutes and 12 seconds. I honestly don't. And that just might be me. But I believe that if this information was not available to the police or entities like the FBI and CIA, then the result would be much worse than whatever "loss" in liberty we would experience otherwise.
We are living in a new era with new ways of communicating and new ways of getting things done. It would be shortsighted not to think that our standard of privacy also has to be updated. No, it's probably not what our founding fathers intended. But times change, standards change, and so does that way that our government protects us.
I agree with Judge Leon's decision. Using a decision made in 1979 to uphold current practices is outdated. The world has changed since 1979, especially in the field of technology. The Obama administration is pushing the envelope on citizen's privacy by making assumptions that a decision made in 1979 allows collection of data that was not even mentioned in the case. Also, as Leon states, ""the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time- sensitive in nature." The government has tracked all US phone calls for a number of years and failed to stop even one terrorist attack through this method. They are preventing an issue that isn't an issue, and invading people's privacy while they're at it. It seems logical to me that the government would stop an ineffective program, especially when it is controversial and intruding on American's rights, but they seem to be adamant for this program to continue. The Constitution specifically outlined the right to privacy, and I don't think this right should be waived just because advances in technology have allowed us to converse without being face to face.
I strongly disagree with the ruling made by Judge Pauley in which he affirmed that the NSA's collection of phone data is legal. I understand that the legal precedent for the case, Smith v. Maryland (1979), found that "Americans have no expectation of privacy in the telephone metadata that companies hold as business records and ruled that a warrant is not required to obtain such information." However, I believe that times have changed since 1979 and that this precedent is now outdated and our justice system should reflect those changes. With modern technology, rulings such as this inch us closer and closer to a society in which the government is involved in every aspect of the lives of private citizens (1). While the NSA says that they aren't actually paying mind to the content of the calls...it's hard to believe much of anything they say. After Edward Snowden leaked a vast array of private documents, it was revealed to the public that the NSA, "has collected almost 200 million text messages a day from across the globe, using them to extract data including location, contact networks and credit card details" (2). The NSA program named "Dishfire" collects "pretty much anything it can". So I find it hard to trust an agency that has a history of not telling the American public the whole story, and simply trusting them to do the right thing. By ruling in their favor, it allows the NSA to continue this type of shady operation and invade the private lives of millions of innocent US citizens. Lastly, in his decision, Judge Pauley justifies the goals of the NSA by saying that, "the program... represents the U.S. government’s “counter-punch” to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network." While this maybe true, the effects of this invasion of privacy go far beyond counter terrorism. As the lower court ruled, it is hard to believe that the governmental interest outweighs the right to privacy when the information that is relevant for what the government is searching for (intelligence on terrorism) applies to so few American citizens (3). Hopefully, as the court makes it's way up to the Supreme Court, the Justices will find that this invasion of privacy to create the haystack in which there way or may not be a needle in is both reckless and unconstitutional.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/us/nsa-phone-data-collection-is-illegal-aclu-says.html?_r=0
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-millions-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep
(3) http://news.yahoo.com/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-192758776.html
I very strongly disagree with the ruling made by Judge Pauley. I don’t really understand how a program that is disliked by so many Americans, can even exist in the first place, no matter what the reasoning behind its existence is. I do not believe that the mass collecting, searching, and potentially listening to phone calls without a warrant justifies "the program... (which) represents the U.S. government’s “counter-punch” to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network.” (1). Judge Pauley stated, He stated, “As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific.” The truth is that although it the events of September 11th were horrific and a tragedy, we don’t really know whether or not having this agency would have stopped the attacks anyway. The American public is obviously upset with the program. “...the agency has exceeded its mandate and abused its authority.” (2) Watching every American and listening to their lives would definitely reduce terrorist attacks and crimes, but it does not mean that it does not violate the 4th Amendment. It is true that privacy and security are inversely proportional in any group or society. To be more secure, individuals need to give up some privacy, and to have more privacy, they must give up some security. However, there must be a balance of the two. They need to co-exist. The NSA program has screwed up the balance and now the American people are unhappy and have lost some trust in the governement
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-nsas-collecting-of-phone-records-is-likely-unconstitutional/2013/12/16/6e098eda-6688-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?_r=0
I agree with Judge Richard Leon. Judge Leon said, “The government does not cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack” as part of his interpretation of the rationale of the NSA. I do not think that the phone surveillance was necessary and the list of prevented terrorism attacks because of these calls is very low, in the eyes of Judge Leon. I believe that if the people had more of a substantial piece of evidence to hold on to, they wouldn't be as negative towards the idea of being spied on by their own country. Personally I don’t like the fact that the government was spying on a mass amount of its own citizens in an attempt to kill of the terrorism and threats in our country.
I completely agree with Judge Richard Leon, who declared that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional and probably violates our Fourth Amendment right. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and the NSA monitoring U.S citizens without a reasonable cause, is an unreasonable search and violates our rights (1). Leon also stated that, “the government does not cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack,” (1). So when the NSA says they are monitoring people to prevent terrorist attacks, Judge Leon replies saying the NSA has never prevented one. So again, the NSA violates our Fourth Amendment right by unreasonable searches and seizures.
Leon also stated, “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,” (2). Therefore, the NSA has no right to track every citizen just because. They have no reason to do so. Leon also argued, even if NSA's "metadata" collection of records should pass constitutional muster, the judge said, there is little evidence it has ever prevented a terrorist attack (3). Therefore, what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional and it violates the Fourth Amendment under unreasonable search and seizure.
I agree with Jude Leon completely because I feel that the government does not have a reason to be tracking everyone and what they are doing has not helped America in anyway (in my opinion).
1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge
2. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html#ixzz2rlHgN400
3. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-nsas-bulk-collection-program-violates-4th-amendment#sthash.tHWUhamQ.dpuf
I can’t disagree more with Judge Pauley, who completely disregards the meaning of “unreasonable search and seizure”. Without just cause, without reasonable suspicion, there is no reason to search someone’s personal effects, and who people talk to privately isn’t a public matter. He also tries to justify the collection by saying that it was, “the government’s “counter-punch” to eliminate Al-Quaeda.” I personally don’t see how they could know who was talking to Al-Quaeda without already knowing the phone numbers and tracing the calls, or even tapping them, however - and so while they may establish patterns, I’m not sure how they would distinguish between a dangerous pattern and a innocent one. Regardless, the fourth amendment nor the Patriot Act actually uphold what he’s saying, and so it makes no sense that he’d site those two pieces of “evidence”. Besides, even if this collection is finding Al-Quaeda, it doesn’t make it legal, and definitely not constitutional, which is the actual question at hand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-district-judge-pauleys-ruling-in-aclu-vs-clapper/723/
I disagree with the statements made by Judge Pauley in his decision that the NSA's actions are constitutional. I believe that the government is entirely infringing on the American people's right to privacy, and they don't seem very apologetic for it. It makes me very angry to see that the first thing Judge Pauley brought up in his opinion is the 9/11 attacks. Yes, 9/11 was an awful moment in the World, but it should not justify completely burning an amendment of the Constitution into smoke. Judge Pauley, when talking about how the current NSA system works said, "such data can reveal a rich profile of every individual as well as a comprehensive record of people's associations with one another."(1) This quote scares me. It scares me because it really sounds like the "Big Brother" keeping track of you. Our Constitutional right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment was made to prevent just that.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-district-judge-pauleys-ruling-in-aclu-vs-clapper/723/
I completely agree with the judgment made by Judge Leon. There is absolutely no way in which the actions made by the NSA can be fathomed as constitutional. The initial method is absurd, gathering information on every American citizen, then sorting through it later. It is akin to police officers breaking into every home in America, searching it, and claiming the search is constitutional because the information will only be used against them should they be suspected. This patently goes against the unreasonable search and seizure clause, as no warrant is required to acquire the data, and then no warrant is required to use it in a court of law. It treats every American as a criminal, and devoid of rights. The Maryland case needs to be reviewed in the changing times, as no one expected that the NSA would extend the ability to look into pen registry as the ability to look into every interaction with phone companies. I am particularly glad Leon addressed the success of this program. "Turning to the efficacy prong, the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time- sensitive in nature." Even with the massive swath of information they have collected, they cannot point to the case in which a single terrorist has been put behind bars by these searches. The absurdity of these actions is unfathomable, and they cannot be allowed to continue.
I believe that judge William H. Pauly III is wrong when he said that the data collecting is legal. When they are collecting information from people that haven’t done anything there's a problem. Another issue I have with this is that he said “This blunt tool only works because it collects everything.”(1). This is completely wrong because collecting information from all these people is not right. People have the protection of the 4th Amendment and shouldn’t have information taken from them illegally. Including that an everyday citizen could’ve had their information taken without them knowing. We as citizens that pay our taxes and are following the laws. We should not be taken advantage of and have our privacy violated. Sure there is reason to gain information yet when will it end. People say we need this because we are at war yet will we not be when will we actually say we are at peace. People need to understand that we have to protect our rights and keep them or the government will take more and more. Now is the time to protect our rights before they are all taken.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200
I agree with Judge Richard Leon when he says “the sweeping NSA collection of U.S. phone metadata constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” He also talks about the case Smith v. Maryland Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court held the installation and the use of the pen register was not a search within the Fourth Amendment so therefore no warrant was required. Justice Leon argues that times have changed since the case was argued and that “advances in technology and people's use of cellphones mean that old case law no longer holds.” I agree with him when he says this. It is like telling girls that they have to wear poodle skirts because thats what girls did back them. We have greatly advanced in technology which means we have to make new amendments to anything that may violate our rights. Justice Leon also states that the Government has not sited any instances where the analysis of NSA’s collection actually stopped an attack or helped the Government. That is why I believe that the NSA is unconstitutional and that Justice Leon is correct.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home