Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Senators Call NSA Snooping Unnecessary to Security

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 27 comments
Tags :

Mark Udall (D-Colorado), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) collectively filed an amicus curae brief for a lawsuit filed against the NSA, claiming that its record collection violated the Fourth Amendment.

Three senators have said what pretty much everyone in the world is thinking – that the NSA's methods of data collection were huge intrusions and completely unnecessary for the security of the United States. Mark Udall (D-Colorado), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) collectively filed an amicus curae brief for a lawsuit filed against the NSA, claiming that its record collection violated the Fourth Amendment.

The amendment guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure of property, which historically has been used to ensure a "right to privacy." The brief also warns against broad interpretations of FISA, which in theory, could be used to collect financial and medical records from U.S. citizens – a process that is supposed to be very illegal unless the authorities have prior approval and probable cause.

From the brief, "Because the government's call-records program needlessly intrudes upon the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans, [we] believe the bulk collection of these phone records should be ended."

The NSA has countered this claim that their efforts are reasonable and justified to protect Americans from terrorists. 

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • 6 Hide
    thechief73 , November 22, 2013 9:14 PM
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    [EDIT/UPDATE]

    It's Latin for "Who guards the guards?"

    or better know as "Who watches the watchmen?"

    I thought it would be more elegant without having to explain the meaning.
  • 3 Hide
    clonazepam , November 22, 2013 9:47 PM
    "Who will watch the watch-guards?" - Had to translate that. Thanks Google. You're my friend (sometimes). lol
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , November 23, 2013 1:02 AM
    "The amendment guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure of property, "

    no the Amendment IV clearly states

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
    houses,
    papers,
    and effects,
    against unreasonable searches and seizures,
    shall not be violated,
    and no Warrants shall issue,
    but upon probable cause,
    supported by Oath or affirmation,
    and particularly describing the place to be searched,
    and the persons or things to be seized.
  • Display all 27 comments.
  • 2 Hide
    f-14 , November 23, 2013 1:15 AM
    just like the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed."
    what part of "shall not be violated," can not be clearly comprehended?

    also the 5th amendment was directly violated as well:

    "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
    nor be deprived of life,
    liberty,
    or property,
    without due process of law;

    nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    1st Amendment
    "Congress shall make no law respecting " <--how can you not see direct prohibitionary labeling?

    seriously read the preamble:
    "The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."

    THERE'S NOTHING TO INTERPRET IT'S DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WITH NUMEROUS PRINTED PUBLICATIONS BY THE MAKERS/SIGNERS CITING THE REASONS OF DIRECT ABUSES THE KING OF ENGLAND USED AGAINST THEM.

    YOU CAN'T SCREW ANY OF IT UP!!!

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    go read the declaration of independence most of the reasons are directly cited in the very first document of founding of the USA right there!

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.................................To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. : ..... "
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html


    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , November 23, 2013 1:21 AM
    "but upon probable cause," <---- probable cause is injury, death, damage or destruction of property

    ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU CLEARLY MAKE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT HAS THIS DEFINED TO THEIR FACE it is more important than your miranda rights for which was a defining court case that stated police are allowed to LIE TO YOU or only tell the partial truth/facts in order to get you to incriminate yourself or break the law infront of a police officer as you are not allowed to lie to them.
  • -1 Hide
    razorblaze42 , November 23, 2013 1:54 AM
    ISP's, Phone Companies and Search providers are already collecting,, storing, and selling same the data the NSA is seeking to access...this is not a 4th Amendment argument, because once you allow companies, like Google, access to your data...there's no expectation of privacy anymore. (FYI that's Google's argument in a separate case)
  • 0 Hide
    jalek , November 23, 2013 4:55 AM
    The government attorneys claim that their phone record collections have given them leads on finding associates as people of interest are discovered. How that extends to the NSA talk of archiving all data in the country they didn't say..
  • 0 Hide
    Nilo BP , November 23, 2013 6:19 AM
    True that you can't expect your data to be private when you put it out on the street, but I think the feds didn't just walk up to Internet firms and ask them real nice and friendly if they could *please* share their info.

    That's the real issue - not that they store the data that happens to fall on their laps, but that they go around invading property, twisting arms and lying about it, and with taxpayer money (i.e. taken from people whether they like it or not) to boot.

    But hey, it's all to protect us poor, helpless sheep from Bogeyman, err, terrorists, innit?
  • 0 Hide
    dorsai , November 23, 2013 7:43 AM
    I don't buy the argument that once your in public the 4th amendment doesn't apply...I generally take my person, effects, and papers with me everywhere I go.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , November 23, 2013 9:57 AM
    Quote:
    The government attorneys claim that their phone record collections have given them leads on finding associates as people of interest are discovered. How that extends to the NSA talk of archiving all data in the country they didn't say..


    i had read a very complicated brief of that argument. essentially the spying was carrier out then what ever offenses were discovered were turned over to the proper departments in other branches of the law enforcement. essentially if they were spying on the tea party or anonymous, and you had information posted of being a drug user, that information was turned over to the DEA, and when the DEA took those cases to trial and were questioned about how that evidence was obtained they citied a very long run around of how they obtained that information and alluded or lied to the cause of discovery of that information being at their request using vague reasons to elicit probable cause.

    couldn't find the bookmark of the DOJ version i looked at but this quick google search sort of sums it up:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

    Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans
    BY JOHN SHIFFMAN AND KRISTINA COOKE
    WASHINGTON Mon Aug 5, 2013 3:25pm EDT
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , November 23, 2013 9:58 AM
    Quote:
    The government attorneys claim that their phone record collections have given them leads on finding associates as people of interest are discovered. How that extends to the NSA talk of archiving all data in the country they didn't say..


    well then where is the terms of agreement contract releasing you of these rights and of prosecution you signed with the NSA that google had you sign in order to use their service?

    but to be devils advocate here, if the NSA is a paying customer of googles and google gave them a wholesale price on all the data they had...that's a different story then right?

    "The law cannot save those who deny it but neither can the law serve any who do not use it. The history of injustice and inequality is a history of disuse of the law. Law has not failed--and is not failing. We as a nation have failed ourselves by not trusting the law and by not using the law to gain sooner the ends of justice which law alone serves.
    ~ Lyndon B. Johnson ~"
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 23, 2013 10:37 AM
    as Lemmy of Motorhead wrote: You may have the power, but you ain't got the right.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 23, 2013 10:38 AM
    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
  • 1 Hide
    Grandmastersexsay , November 23, 2013 11:37 AM
    Just so everyone knows, all these 3 Democrat senators did was write a letter saying they support a lawsuit that someone else filed. They are not taking any part in the lawsuit nor does their amicus curae brief mean anything.

    Mean while, their party is the one in control and ultimately responsible for the actions of the NSA. If they don't like what the NSA is doing, they can do something about it.

    Don't get me wrong. The Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. Of all the Senators, I think the only one actually interested in curbing the NSA is Rand Paul.
  • 0 Hide
    rad666 , November 23, 2013 12:19 PM
    They don't care if it's "necessary", they can so they do.
  • 0 Hide
    ddpruitt , November 23, 2013 12:42 PM
    Why isn't anyone going after the judges in this case. One of the judges freely admitted they had issues with this but said they signed the FISA warrant anyway.

    Our government is built on a system of checks and balances. This means everyone has a part to play to ensure that no one part of government becomes too powerful. I think we've witnessed the fact that the collective public apathy towards government is biting us in the a$$. Yes it's our fault this is happening, let's do something about it.
  • 0 Hide
    Gulli , November 23, 2013 12:49 PM
    "Because the government's call-records program needlessly intrudes upon the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans [...]"

    And billions of foreigners...
  • 0 Hide
    Grandmastersexsay , November 23, 2013 12:54 PM
    Quote:
    Why isn't anyone going after the judges in this case. One of the judges freely admitted they had issues with this but said they signed the FISA warrant anyway.

    Our government is built on a system of checks and balances. This means everyone has a part to play to ensure that no one part of government becomes too powerful. I think we've witnessed the fact that the collective public apathy towards government is biting us in the a$$. Yes it's our fault this is happening, let's do something about it.


    Go after the judges? How exactly? They can't be sued or prosecuted. These judges are appointed not elected.

    Basically the only repurcusion these judges could face is being passed up for a higher level appointment by the President. Of course we can surmise that the president supports this kind of draconian intelegence gathering as he is the one who appoints the director of the NSA.
  • 0 Hide
    jalek , November 23, 2013 4:22 PM
    Quote:
    Don't get me wrong. The Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. Of all the Senators, I think the only one actually interested in curbing the NSA is Rand Paul.


    Mr. Wyden of Oregon seems to be a lone voice as often as not. He had an alternate to the ACA, he's opposed the NDAA with it's martial arrest provisions (one of only 7 Senators), and in general he seems to be on the liberty side of most issues, ignoring the money behind them.

    Too bad he's not my Senator, mine follow the money explicitly and they ride easily to reelection.
  • 0 Hide
    jalek , November 23, 2013 4:26 PM
    Quote:
    Why isn't anyone going after the judges in this case. One of the judges freely admitted they had issues with this but said they signed the FISA warrant anyway.


    One of the early NSA audit reports found them being intentionally misleading in dealing with the FISA court and just ignoring it when it was inconvenient. It must be functionally toothless, yet the thing politicians point to as the reason the NSA is not overstepping anything.
Display more comments