Topic: Judge Rules You Can't Sue the NSA for Secretly Spying on You (Read 1135 times)

Of course you can't sue the NSA duh  Spying is their business, that's what they do. They're like kids playing with superpowers, you don't have the heart to take that away from them do you?
Let's all take a deep breath and relax, they're the good guys remember? So what if they find out you have a mistress?? it's all good, give them a break   

So what the judge is really saying is that it is ok on us to spy on the NSA to prove that we were being spied on
Break through their cyphers and access their database then start a lawsuit 

Here's the biggest problem. Even if you can prove you're being spied on, a Fourth Amendment claim by a citizen would be dismissed because the mere act of the government defending against such a claim would cause an impermissible disclosure of state secret information. So the court is taking the position that they can't even ask the government to prove they're not doing anything wrong, because national security.

I think the greatest joke is when people think they can harass and attack others over the internet then they always get a complete shock when they're tracked down and have to face the consequences of their actions. The thing is, it works both ways, the NSA is not this all powerful force that can indiscriminately attack us, especially people in the cryptocurrency community.

There is no real privacy. We may be watched or listened to at any time. All types of correspondence are subject to review. Expect a visit soon from the Thought Police.

There is no real privacy. We may be watched or listened to at any time. All types of correspondence are subject to review. Expect a visit soon from the Thought Police.

Advocates for less government snooping suffered a blow Tuesday when a federal judge in California ruled that a group of citizens can not sue the National Security Agency to stop the "upstream" collection of their data.

US District Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the plaintiffs in the case, Jewel v. NSA, failed to prove that they have the right to sue because they could not prove that their individual information had been collected and prepared for analysis. Further, White wrote, "even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require impermissible disclosure of state secret information."

Essentially, because the plaintiffs can't say specifically how their data was collected by the government, this aspect of their case won't go forward. The reason they can't offer specifics is because, even after the Snowden leaks, the exact workings of the NSA surveillance program remain undisclosed. And even if the plaintiffs could show those specifics, the NSA could swat down their suit by claiming that the case would compromise state secrets.

"Upstream" collection refers to the government's admitted practice of copying phone and internet traffic moving through the fiber optic backbone of the internet, trying to filter out purely domestic information, and then searching the remaining traffic for certain keywords, phrases, email addresses, etc.