Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)

27. No. This is a 2011 court ruling finding actual 4th Amendment violations.

Reply to jeff47 (Reply #15)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:55 PM

Aug 2013

It's not "coverage."

The court is not taking the NSA to task for violating protections that didn't exist yet. That's not a thing that courts do.

It found that the NSA's own procedures for minimizing improper domestic surveillance, as reported in 2011, did not meet Constitutional muster.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

N.S.A. Phone Data Collection Is Illegal, A.C.L.U. Says - NYT [View all] WillyT Aug 2013 OP

Good luck to them. Luminous Animal Aug 2013 #1

Violating The 4th Amendment - Isn't It Obvious That The Government Is Breaking Its Own Laws cantbeserious Aug 2013 #2

Not according to the SCOTUS jeff47 Aug 2013 #6

creating profiles based on phone, data, surfing, email is quite different nashville_brook Aug 2013 #9

Based on what law? jeff47 Aug 2013 #10

Except we already know the NSA misled courts & violated the 4th. DirkGently Aug 2013 #11

You're claiming they violated safeguards that didn't exist yet. jeff47 Aug 2013 #15

No. This is a 2011 court ruling finding actual 4th Amendment violations. DirkGently Aug 2013 #27

"That's not a thing that courts do," indeed. nashville_brook Aug 2013 #30

SCOTUS Also Selected Bush Over Gore - Infallible They Are Not cantbeserious Aug 2013 #12

Infallible has nothing to do with it. jeff47 Aug 2013 #16

I Do Not Debate Authoritarians - The Thinking Is Too Rigid And Inflexible - Have A Nice Day cantbeserious Aug 2013 #17

It has nothing to do with "authoritarian". It's what's in the Constitution. jeff47 Aug 2013 #18

There Is A Difference Between The Spirit And Letter Of Laws cantbeserious Aug 2013 #20

And that still doesn't change that the Constitution makes the SCOTUS the end-of-the-line jeff47 Aug 2013 #23

And That Still Does Not Make Them Infallible cantbeserious Aug 2013 #24

But your entire premise re: "SCOTUS" is utter bullshit. DirkGently Aug 2013 #28

It was amazing what I learned from just looking at Sprint data on snappyturtle Aug 2013 #3

Yeah but Sprint can't send SWAT teams to your house and haul your ass to jail davidn3600 Aug 2013 #4

OH....you took it wrong. YES, you're right. I was just saying snappyturtle Aug 2013 #7

K&R MotherPetrie Aug 2013 #5

K&R forestpath Aug 2013 #8

K & R AzDar Aug 2013 #13

I'd like to think they could win in Court on it, but our Judiciary is so much more struggle4progress Aug 2013 #14

What are they afraid of? Octafish Aug 2013 #19

You do know the NSA has many more responsibilities than looking for terrorists, right? randome Aug 2013 #21

Tell me about it. Octafish Aug 2013 #22

I stand with the ACLU on this issue Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #25

Yes, it is illegal. All the excuses and apologetics won't make it legal. sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #26

Some really bizarre spinning going on in this thread. DirkGently Aug 2013 #29

Which is why I donate to them. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #31