U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: The ACLU's Biggest Roadblock to Fighting Mass Surveillance
Source:
wired.com
URL Source: https://www.wired.com/story/wikimed ... -surveillance-privacy-lawsuit/
Published: Jun 29, 2018
Author: Lily Hay Newman
Post Date: 2018-06-29 15:14:15 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 2944
Comments: 17
The Wikimedia Foundation, which the ACLU is representing along with cocounsel from the Knight First Amendment Institute and Cooley LLP, engages in more than a trillion communications per year with people around the world, and has hundreds of millions of visitors each month to Wikipedia. The organization is suing to stop upstream surveillance, the process by which the NSA passively monitors and collects a huge amount of data and text-based communications by combing international internet traffic as it moves across service providers' backbone infrastructure. The suit alleges that this tactic violates the First and Fourth Amendment, along with other laws. But it took two years for Wikimedia to simply prove its standing to bring the suit. Now, the government is using a concept known as the “state secrets privilege,” which protects classified information from the discovery process in a lawsuit, to resist cooperating with Wikimedia's requests. As a result of these evasive tactics, the core constitutional issues of upstream surveillance remain unexamined. "No public court has ever addressed the lawfulness of this surveillance," says Ashley Gorski, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "It's very clear that Wikimedia's communications are in fact subject to this surveillance and what it has done is seek additional information from the government that would provide more direct evidence of that. So that's what's at issue in this hearing. The government is saying that it wants to exclude all of that information from the case altogether, because it is classified and to disclose it would be to reveal state secrets." 'Our lawsuit is one of very few ways the public can hold the NSA accountable.' JIM BUATTI, WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION The state secrets privilege comes up in other contexts at times, including in cases related to potential human rights violations and torture, so the outcome of the Wikimedia v. NSA hearings on the topic could have larger conceptual implications. In the particular case of surveillance, though, the ACLU points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act includes a provision that specifically states that when entities like Wikimedia seek to discover classified information on surveillance operations, the court can act as an intermediary to review the relevant evidence, even if it's too sensitive for the public or the plaintiffs themselves to see directly. Friday’s hearing will attempt to reconcile the government’s state secrets claim with the FISA statute Congress created to preserve accountability of surveillance operations. “The government has put up a series of obstacles to having our public courts fairly and openly litigate the big legal questions at stake here,” says Patrick Toomey, also a staff attorney in the ACLU's National Security Project. “We’ve known about this surveillance in detail since the Snowden revelations and it existed before that, but the government has really tried to avoid having public courts weigh in on whether this real-time computer scanning of our international communications is constitutional.” The intelligence community has argued that the NSA’s international bulk collection doesn’t impact US citizens, and focuses instead on investigating targets of interest to national security. But the ACLU points out that this list of targets has recently ballooned to include about 129,000 people, according to a recent transparency report—one indication that the scope of the surveillance dragnet is ever-expanding. And privacy advocates have long pointed out that bulk scanning can sweep up countless people’s irrelevant personal data in the process of drilling down to the intended targets. Furthermore, even though the NSA focuses on international data, watchdogs note that there are a variety of reasons that domestic communications might be routed internationally and end up passing through surveillance scanners. An NSA spokesperson said that the agency "is unable to comment on ongoing litigation." "Our lawsuit is one of very few ways the public can hold the NSA accountable for its indiscriminate interception of communications between Americans and those abroad," says Wikimedia legal counsel Jim Buatti. "It is critical that the federal courts have the information they need to effectively oversee these otherwise unchecked surveillance activities. The Wikimedia projects can only thrive when users are confident that their rights to privacy and free expression will be respected." Research indicates that mass surveillance has a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users' browsing. In research from 2016 and 2017, Jon Penney, an assistant professor at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia tracked traffic patterns for users accessing Wikipedia pages before and after Edward Snowden's NSA revelations in 2013. He found noticeable changes in the types of pages users were willing to visit once the public became aware of the specter of government surveillance. For example, more users began avoiding content related to terrorism and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Penney also found that indications that the chill of bulk surveillance impacts women and young internet users. Though the Snowden revelations fueled widespread understanding of the NSA's digital surveillance operations, years have passed since the initial scandal and public outrage has died down somewhat. "These issues need to get back on the public's radar," Dalhousie's Penney says. And the ACLU hopes that progress on Wikimedia v. NSA will help reignite the conversation. IN MARCH 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a type of National Security Agency bulk monitoring known as "upstream" surveillance. More than three years after the ACLU originally filed the suit, the case is still mired in procedural and bureaucratic limbo. But on Friday, a hearing over one such roadblock in Maryland district court could bring long-awaited progress.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Gee, aren't we lucky to have such a bulwark of "liberty" and "Free Speech" working to keep America safe from intrusive interference, unconstitutional surveillance, and 4A violations? Anyone recall that house-to-house search of Boston neighborhoods after the Boston Marathon bombing? LE knew exactly where that perp was hiding (in a boat in a backyard) but they still performed their illegal Op (ACLU did NOT oppose it.) Gatlin -- can you tell us why NOW the ACLU is suddenly launching a lawsuit in opposition to State Surveillance?? But...but...why NOT after Snowden busted 0bama's NSA back in 2013 when 0bama was President?) For 8 Years, 0bama and his Brownshirts smashed the 1A and 4A to bits. But Trump is in office 18 months -- himself a victim of this Constitutional violation of BOTH the 1A and 4A -- and NOW the NSA and surveillance are raging concerns for the ACLU (and apparently it's #1 Fan, Gatlin.) Everyone knows the ACLU only selectively defends Free Speech and the US Constitution. Oh, THIS statement is rich: A BIG FAT LIE. Are you and the ACLU kidding, Gatlin? NEITHER has "died down" -- if anything We The People are even MORE outraged. The ACLU said BOO about the surveillance of one Donald Trump by 0bama's Deep State during the 2016 campaign. As well as everyone connected TO candidate/President Donald Trump. The ACLU conveniently has NOT mention 0bama and his den of peeping-tom vipers. The ACLU = Frauds of Fake Outrage and Fake Justice.
Who is this "Me," Kemosabe?
"Research"? By WHOM?? Wikipedia is fake info and disinfo, framed as "fact" by biased Leftist authors who manipulate the truth. PERSPECTIVE: "Chilling" is how 0bama, the Left, Facebook, Twitter and You Tube ALL censor, ban, and shadow-ban CONSERVATIVE opinion, posters, and websites. Penney also found that indications that the chill of bulk surveillance impacts women and young internet users. BOO-HOO!!! "Children, women, and minorities hardest hit!!" This is an absolutely a FAKE Crisis by FAKE "Civil Liberties" Commies. The ACLU cares not a Smelling Deuce for the "chilling effect" on Conservatives Free Speech, liberty, and truth in general.
I like Wikipedia show me an example of fake stuff please.
There....glad to have been of help to you and alleviate your deep concern.
That message was on the ACLU Facebook page. It should be blatantly apparently to anyone with just average intelligence that “we” referred to the ACLU organization. I never expected you would have such a comprehension problem. I will try to dumb down future posts to your low IQ level so you can better understand. Back to your typo posting ”Me.” I distinctly remember you severely chastised me for a typo some time back. And seeing you make a typo made me snicker. Karma's a bitch...lol. BTW - Kemosabe is a term of endearment . Are you suddenly coming out of the closet? Huh?
Wikipedia increasingly being recognized as source of disinformation, propaganda Wikipedia allows anyone-anyone-to go in and add, change or delete anything in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is therefore an exercise in trust: it hopes that its users come there with the best of intentions. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for example, was exposed by BBC News back in 2007 for tampering with content posted on the site. A tool known as "Wikipedia Scanner," which was hailed as being capable of identifying some of Wikipedia's user editors, revealed the CIA as an active manipulator of sensitive information. The U.S. military has also been caught editing tens of thousands of Wikipedia entries to suit its own interests. If that be so....then it begs the question as to why the ACLU has filed, and is still filing, various lawsuits to protect free speech? ACLU proves yet again it's a guardian of left-wing agenda The American Civil Liberties Union has formally reversed its support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signaling that the organization is no longer interested in mounting an ideologically consistent defense of all people of faith. It’s a disappointing retreat on principles for the ACLU, and the organization’s explanation suggests that a singular disdain for Christian belief is the reason
Wikipedia allows anyone-anyone-to go in and add, change or delete anything in the encyclopaedia. Putting that aside, your premises are contradictory to each other and no positive conclusion can be drawn from or arrived at with the inconsistency when one combats the other. If, or when, disinformation or propaganda is recognized by anyone, then they can click on “edit” to change or delete any and all disinformation and propaganda. Can you ever learn to make logical sense in your posts?
The most famous conservative that the ACLU went to bat for was Ollie North, improperly convicted in the Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia . It was the ACLU that got him out of prison. OLLIE'S ALLIES AT THE ACLU. [BTW - This was over 30 years ago, Liberator....and that definitely is not “NOW”....eh?] The ACLU even helped Rush Limbaugh – ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records. The ACLU defended Ann Coulter after the conservative pundit cancelled a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, citing security concerns. The ACLU defended Milo Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech after D.C.’s transit removed the conservative author’s ads.. The ACLU defended a Confederate veterans group that wanted the state of Texas to approve a specialty license plate with the Confederate flag. The state denied the plate, and the veterans group sued Texas for violating its free speech. When Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy said in 2012 he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, city mayors in Boston and Chicago wanted to give the Christian- owned restaurant the boot. But the ACLU very publicly had Chick-fil-A's back. When Congress was debating renewing the Patriot Act (the 2001 law that allowed the National Security Agency to collect Americans' phone data) the ACLU and the tea party started running TV ads together calling for the end of the NSA program. The head of the ACLU and the president of Tea Party Patriots co-wrote an op-ed in The Des Moines Register on the issue. When Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch announced a Koch-funded public campaign for criminal justice reform, the ACLU hopped on board, Hey, Liberator, there in no “NOW” and no ‘suddenly.” Get real and get yourself informed. After you do, you will have found that when it comes to free speech, the ACLU has a long history of defending people and groups that share conservative values. If you want o learn about other prominent right-wing groups and people the ACLU has defended than I have presented here....then use Google. I don’t know who is more fun for me to smack down, you or Deckard. Truthfully, I enjoy smacking you both down. You both are so easy because you are illogical and gullible with your closed-minded ways, lacking any objectivity whatsoever.
Seriously? You've never seen it spelled that way? An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of information from either all branches of knowledge or from a particular field or discipline Karma my ass!
No, I have never....thanks.
Uh....what “surveillance?” Lawyer Giuliani said he and president did not know of a spy. His attorney Rudy Giuliani cast doubt on that this week, saying neither he nor the president knew for certain if there was a spy. Giuliani said they had been told about possible “infiltration” of the campaign. “For a long time we’ve been told that there was some kind of infiltration,” he told CNN. “I don’t know for sure, nor does the president, if there really was one.” [....] [Underlining added for emphasis]. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/20/donald-trump-justice- department-fbi-campaign-surveillance#img-1
ACLU - We were in court today to fight the government’s stonewalling of Wikimedia’s lawsuit against warrantless spying.
#2. To: Gatlin, Still Defending the ACLU (#0)
Years have passed since the initial scandal and public outrage has died down somewhat.
"These issues need to get back on the public's radar," Dalhousie's Penney says. And the ACLU hopes that progress on Wikimedia v. NSA will help reignite the conversation.
HA! Very conveniently NOT on 0bama's watch.
#3. To: Gatlin (#1)
ACLU - We were in court today to fight the government’s stonewalling of Wikimedia’s lawsuit against warrantless spying.
#4. To: Gatlin (#0)
Research indicates that mass surveillance has a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users' browsing.
#5. To: Liberator (#4)
#6. To: Liberator (#4)
"Research"? By WHOM??
Go ask Lily Hay Newman @lilyhnewman.
#7. To: Liberator (#3)
Who is this "Me," Kemosabe?
I believe you meant “We.”
#8. To: Liberator (#4)
Wikipedia is fake info and disinfo, framed as "fact" by biased Leftist authors who manipulate the truth.
Is this simply some more opiated bias you pulled out of your ass and notoriously expound on....or do you have valid research documentation to back up this malicious charge?
#9. To: Liberator (#4)
The ACLU cares not a Smelling Deuce for the "chilling effect" on Conservatives Free Speech, liberty, and truth in general.
If that be so....then it begs the question as to why the ACLU has filed, and is still filing, various lawsuits to protect free speech?
#10. To: Liberator, Gatlin (#8)
Wikipedia is fake info and disinfo, framed as "fact" by biased Leftist authors who manipulate the truth.
"The sad truth about the Internet is that what started as a liberating multiplicity of informational sources has dwindled to a handful of knowledge-monopolies with Google and Wikipedia leading the pack," writes Micah White for Adbusters.org in an unrelated piece. "Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source of knowledge and yet, because of a rumored secret-deal with Google, it ranks highly on many searches."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#11. To: Gatlin, Liberator (#9)
The ACLU cares not a Smelling Deuce for the "chilling effect" on Conservatives Free Speech, liberty, and truth in general.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#12. To: Liberator (#2)
Gatlin -- can you tell us why NOW the ACLU is suddenly launching a lawsuit in opposition to State Surveillance??
It is blatantly obvious to anyone with interrogation training that you definitely need to take a close look at how you can properly utilize an assumptive question.
#13. To: Deckard (#10)
Wikipedia increasingly being recognized as source of disinformation, propaganda
What in the Hell is an “encyclopaedia.” You were so quick to point out my typo when I used “to” instead of “too” and now you come up with “encyclopaedia.” Oh the irony. Karma is a bitch, but so satisfying when dealing with a libertarian smartass...lol.
#14. To: Liberator (#2)
The ACLU cares not a Smelling Deuce for the "chilling effect" on Conservatives Free Speech ...
You are wrong, most definitely wrong. There have been many free-speech defenses for various pro-life protesters and other conservative groups. Gatlin -- can you tell us why NOW the ACLU is suddenly launching a lawsuit in opposition to State Surveillance??
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
What in the Hell is an “encyclopaedia".
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#16. To: Deckard (#15)
Seriously? You've never seen it spelled that way?
#17. To: Liberator (#2)
(Edited)
The ACLU said BOO about the surveillance of one Donald Trump by 0bama's Deep State during the 2016 campaign. As well as everyone connected TO candidate/President Donald Trump.
“One” Donald Trump? I wish we had a dozen or more. Donald Trump said on Sunday [20 May 2018] he will ask the justice department to look into whether his 2016 presidential campaign was infiltrated or surveilled. Donald Trump tweeted: ‘I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes’
Trump has been promoting a theory circulating in conservative circles about a possible FBI spy on the campaign. The ACLU said BOO about the surveillance of one Donald Trump by 0bama's Deep State during the 2016 campaign. As well as everyone connected TO candidate/President Donald Trump.
So, Liberator, how can the ACLU say BOO about a surveillance they don’t know existed? Hmmm ...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]