What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
The Threadless Holiday Sale view!
threadless.com - All Threadless.com t-shirts are $9, today only!
4 Comments
- Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the text ruling.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I am burying because the article contradicts its self. It says "Three judges at a Cincinnati court reached a majority decision that the programme was within the limits of the constitution, and that inspecting people's email and phone conversations is allowable." then they have a quotes from the ACLU basically saying the opposite, "It is important to emphasise that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity."Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful. We are currently reviewing all our legal options, including taking this challenge to the US Supreme Court."
While I haven't read the entire 65 page decision, of 26 pages I have read and the portions ahead that I skimmed nothing gave the impression that judges were say the program was "within the limits of the constitution". Further, the decision was 2-1, not unanimous as the article seems to imply. The case was dismissed largely because the ACLU didn't having standing to bring the lawsuit, not because the program was constitutional.
The battle is not over, the EFF's suit against AT&T is still pending in court and from what I understand one of their clients can show injury and thus standing to bring suit because the FBI slipped up and handed over records relating to the tapping of his own phone.
You can get the text of ruling from http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf - bmatherlyjr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well the moment you begin to use encryption; you make the NSA earn their pay.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0It doesn't mean people can't do anything to protect themselves.
https://www.microchp.org/privacy/
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is