Snowden stole 'keys to the kingdom': NSA official

[JDPriestly]

115. Please study up on the concept of "chilling speech" which is fundamental to our constitutional law

and then come back for a serious discussion.

The court's decision that the NSA spying may be unconstitutional is based on the underlying principle that the Fourth Amendment protects our fundamental right to privacy. The government must abstain from unreasonable searches and seizures and must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching and seizing our private effects, writings, etc.

If the government wants to or feels it needs to violate such a fundamental right, it must demonstrate to the court that it has a compelling ground for doing so and that the compelling ground outweighs our fundamental right to privacy that the government wishes to violate.

The government has not shown a compelling reason for collecting our metadata, not one that outweighs our fundamental right to privacy. It has the opportunity to prove in court that it is collecting all that information based on some compelling ground. I doubt that the government can prove that it has such a compelling ground. Collecting information about terrorism and on the communications of terrorists would give the NSA the right to collect the data on those specifically suspected of terrorism or of supporting terrorists in some way. And by the way, since we enjoy freedom of religion, simply having a Muslim name or attending a mosque would not be sufficient reason to deprive someone of their constitutional rights.

The Constitution guarantees our right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment and our other rights, such as the right to freedom of religion and speech and the press and assembly under the First Amendment. The government has violated our right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment just by collecting private information about our communications. That is abhorrent and clearly the kind of thing that the Fourth Amendment, in spite of prior Supreme Court decisions that whittle away at its protection, intended to prohibit. The government has to show that it has a compelling ground to violate the right. We don't have to show that we were injured or have economic or personal damages due to the violation. That is because it is our fundamental right. You don't have to prove that you have a right. It is guaranteed to you in the Constitution or other laws.

The reason I post my opinions so openly on DU is that I am retired. I no longer have an employer. If I did, the fact that the NSA could identify me and read my posts and could retaliate against me by informing my employer about what I say and thus perhaps cause my employer to fire me would cause me serious damages.

Many people probably think carefully about what they write on the internet because, even though they do not write something harmful or threatening, they write something controversial (like my writings) and they do not want their employers to know about it.

How interested your employer might be in what you think and how you express yourself on the internet might depend upon the field in which you work. The NSA collects my metadata and can see from just how many and from which politicians I receive e-mails. That information reveals my opinions, my political stance on things. That I watched some of the Occupy webcams was possibly noted by the NSA. If I were still working, the NSA could potentially cause me trouble in my workplace by advising my employer about my internet browsing habits -- my political ties. Thus, people, for example active Democrats with conservative Republicans bosses, could definitely suffer damage, injury in that their freedom to speak out and write their opinions on the internet. That they might hold back or have held back or not expressed their opinions proves that their speech has been curtailed or "chilled" if you will.

Yes. People have suffered and are suffering important damages to their abilities to exercise their rights to freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly and especially the freedom of the press thanks to the NSA surveillance.

The ACLU is one of the organizations opposing the NSA collections. It can claim damages. It is imperative that organizations like the ACLU be free from surveillance. Same for organizations we tend to think of as right-wing. Makes little difference which political view the organization represents, the NSA spying would have a tendency to injure the ability of political or activist organizations to raise money or encourage people to request their help.

Yes. People have been damaged. Our democracy has already been damaged. And our relationships with several, perhaps many, foreign countries have been damaged because of the NSA surveillance.