One of the problems with oversight by the judiciary is that it is appallingly ignorant of technology on the whole. But some oversight is better than no oversight. As for thinking the plaintiffs are delusional, right. Tell it to Birgitta Jonsdottir. Or Kim Dotcom for that matter.
Or, more to the point, anyone that might want to interview them or say a member of an insurgency somewhere that the US is finding inconvenient at the time. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com>wrote: > > That particular defense has been quite successful for the government > so far. I'm in the 9th Circuit and we've had a couple of cases winding > their way through the system for awhile where the government > accidentally revealed that they had, in fact, done just what was > accused in this case, that they had wire tapped Americans, > domestically, without a warrant. > > And, still, the government argued that the defendants didn't have > standing because the evidence was *supposed* to be secret and > shouldn't have been turned over, therefore it doesn't really exist. > They further argue that the defendants should give the evidence back > because it is classified and if they give it back, then they don't > have it, therefore they can't use it to establish standing. > > Really. And the arguments have worked a surprising amount of the time. > The courts give, in my opinion, way too much deference to the federal > government about what ought to be secret. > > Judah > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Wow. Jacobs sounds like an asshole. If he can't separate his personal > > distaste for the plaintiffs from the legal standing of their complaint, > > then he needs to recuse himself if the matter gets sent back to him. > > > > The government's defense is that the plaintiffs can't sue because no one > > caught them in the act? > > > > Yeah, I don't think that has ever really worked in any indictment. > > > > That attitude makes it clear that the spirit of the law is being ignored > > and that the law is only thought of as something inconvenient that has > > to be worked around. > > > > On 5/22/2012 1:15 PM, Dana wrote: > >> > >> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/supreme-court-to-decide-if-journalists-can-sue-over-warrantless-wiretaps/ > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351106 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
