3 Shocking Revelations from NSA's Most Terrifying Program Yet

[intaglio]

133. OK, have someone take it to court

Until that happens the ultimate test of whether the Constitution is applicable has not been met - and you know it.

What is, probably, worse for your view is that legal opinion will have been sought as to whether these actions are constitutional. It is likely that the legal consensus will have been that the agencies and the Administration are in the clear. Why will an opinion have been sought? Because civil servants and politicians like to "CYA". That the legal opinion may be worthless is possible (think John Yoo and torture) but it does provide a fig leaf of propriety.

There is also the problem that there is, as I understand it, no overarching right to privacy in the constitution. The 4A only provides protections against unwarranted searches and seizures; 1A only covers only a "chilling effect" on the right to free speech and assembly; while 14A gives only a right to privacy in familial matters.

What follows are a set of arguments, I do not think they are good for the rights of man but I can recognise that they might have some validity in law. As Bumble observed in Oliver Twist "The Law, Sir in a ass - a idiot!"

The security services will surely argue on the following lines:

4A - There was no search on against particular a named person until that person's actions in the "landscape" of the internet drew attention on them and at that point a warrant was obtained. Example: A policeman can stop you if he observes what he or she classes as erratic driving and at that point some of your freedoms vanish.

1A - The quiet observation of a gathering place does not impinge upon the right of assembly or freedom of speech, traffic cameras do not have to be turned off during demonstrations or outside convention centres. Overt observation might have such a chilling effect so we kept it secret.

14A - The family and it's secrets were not observed only the actions of it's members in the public forum of the internet. If mails are going to countries of interest or persons of interest we then obtain warrants to inspect that mail further.

As to lies? "Internet privacy" is a lie, it never existed. Trumping the constitution is a lie; get it tested in law and only then can you see if the constitution has been over ruled. "They don't need a search warrant" a lie because search warrants were obtained when the information (in the view of the security services) justified it.

Then there are the deceptions to stampede the less informed into an orgy of fear or outrage. I called this OP scaremongering and I hold to that.

Oh, the warrantless part is of meta - for content (if a US citizen) they needed a warrant. Yes, the could could access content without a warrant just as the police can force entry into your house without a warrant but, in that last case and lawyers permitting, they had better have a good reason else the department will pay*.


___________________________________________________________

*It also helps if the offended party is a wealthy white male.