It’s been a very long battle between civil rights groups and the NSA, but after all this long and drawn out battle, it appears as though civil rights organizations have experienced a setback in the warrantless wiretapping cases going on in the United States. Still, the battle is far from over as they have vowed to appeal the dismissal in the 9th circuit court of appeals.
If one were to go clear back into June of 2008, the month that saw the passage of the Protect America Act, that still doesn’t even get close to the beginning of this whole ordeal (you’d have to go clear back to when Mark Klein blew the whistle on AT&T clear back in 2007 (many argue that the case goes even further back over a report in the New York Times). From court mandated sealed documents to government secrets to lawsuits to legislation to block lawsuits to the constitution, the warrantless wiretapping case has taken many twists and turns throughout the years to get us to where we are today.
This latest setback appears to be a new blow to privacy advocates and civil rights groups alike among others. It’s new legal affirmation that the government doesn’t need a warrant to put a wiretap on anyone inside or outside the United States. Then again, what exactly does the constitution mean when it says that the law guards against unlawful search and seizures anyway? There may be similar questions that could be brought in when civil rights groups appeal their lawsuits.
In the case so far, a judge has dismissed the lawsuits and upheld legislation that granted telecom immunity over warrantless wiretapping on behalf of the NSA.
“Congress has manifested its unequivocal intention to create an immunity that will shield the telecommunications company defendants from liability in these actions,” Judge Walker Wrote (PDF)
In an EFF Press Release:
“We’re deeply disappointed in Judge Walker’s ruling today,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “The retroactive immunity law unconstitutionally takes away Americans’ claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government’s separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law.”
“The immunity legislation that the court upheld today gives the telephone companies a free pass for flouting the law and violating the privacy rights of millions of their customers,” said Ann Brick, ACLU of Northern California staff attorney.
In today’s ruling, Judge Walker left the door open to accountability for the government, holding that “plaintiffs retain a means of redressing the harms alleged in their complaints by proceeding against governmental actors and entities who are, after all, the primary actors in the alleged wiretapping activities.” EFF is also suing the government for the illegal surveillance in a separate case, Jewel v. NSA.
“By passing the retroactive immunity for the telecoms’ complicity in the warrantless wiretapping program, Congress abdicated its duty to the American people,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “Now it is up to the Court of Appeals to stand up for the Constitution, and reverse today’s decision.”
At issue is FISAAA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act or FISA Amendments Act) which was passed by Bush in 2008. Currently, the law indicates that Internet Service Providers can spy on their users on behalf of the government without a warrant, regardless of where they are in the world and where they live. In question, is whether or not this law is even constitutional.
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
Related Posts
- USA – ACLU Condemns Warrentless Wiretapping – Legislation to be Voted on Today?
- US Congress Approves Warrantless Wiretapping – 293 to 129
- EFF Sues NSA and High Ranking Government Officials Over Warrantless Wiretapping
- Warrentless Wiretapping Comes to Canada – Canadian Media Censored
- US Telecom Amnesty Bill Passed – ISPs Let Off the Hook
Loading ...
The EFF is the only organization that is protecting our digital rights. After reading about this case, I sent them $750. My privacy is worth atleast that much.
You are a noble individual, when most people are worrying about their pocket books you are stepping up to defend your rights.
It only concerns international correspondence, which I dont have a problem with. If they think its important to listen to what Abdul in Pakistan and Joe in San Fran are talking about so be it.
The United States can have an easier time arguing about traffic going in and out of the borders, but since this case also involves traffic going on within the country, it’s much more difficult to argue that it doesn’t violate the constitution. Since both is in question all this time, it’s probably going to be much more difficult to separate the two issues even though it would have saved a few headaches for the US government.
It is my understanding they only monitored international calls, ones of “interest” between a user in the US and overseas. Monitoring domestic without a warrant is unquestionably illegal.
From wiki:
Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the “terrorist surveillance program”,[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S
I dont think the call should be protected by the Constitution’s 14th amendment once it leaves the US, especially if you’re talking to “people of interest.”
We’ve actually had a similar discussion before when the issue first came up: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9580/us_congress_approves_warrantless_wiretapping__293_to_129/
I responded to the claim that this only tracks foreign communications with tthe following:
“Sorry for disagreeing with you but for one the retroactive immunity actually affects domestic communications as well. Source: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/three-media-mistakes
For another the law is already designed in such a way to track such phone calls without a warrant in the first place. Source: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/mukaseys-missed-call ”
In any event though, it’s no problem that we can’t agree on everything. In fact, I’d say it’s great that we, as writers, can look at things with different perspectives which shows, at least, we have diverse knowledge in similar fields.
From what I’ve seen on this issue is that, while the law was originally touted to be merely surveillance of foreign communications, the actual practice has been that all communications, domestic or foreign, is subject to a warrantless wiretap.
Since the wiretaps are subject to a domestic wiretap, I personally think that the constitution should not allow domestic warrantless wiretapping.
As for foreign communications, I personally have a problem with having my communications monitored without a warrant, but I also know that I’m not really subject to US law, so I can’t use the constitution in my defense.
Even if the other end of a communication ends in a foreign country, the person on the US side is still protected by the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments to the US Constitution. Any violation of those rights is illegal.
If the government wants to wiretap legally it has to go to a judge and get a warrant.