Snowden on NSA Phone Collection Ruling: Told Ya So

"In YO FACE, Alexander!"The GuardianNational Security Agency critics and privacy advocates are practically dancing their way across social media, spreading the news that U.S. District Court Just Richard Leon has declared the NSA’s mass phone metadata record collections are likely Fourth Amendment violations. (Seriously, they’re stopping just short of throwing up Vine clips of themselves making out with a PDF of the ruling).

Whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom the NSA and 60 Minutes dismissed last night as a cheating, weirdo dropout, gave a response to Glenn Greenwald, who passed the statement along to The New York Times to include in their reporting:

“I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.'s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts,” Mr. Snowden said. “Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”

Having had the chance to look a little more closely at the ruling, it’s abundantly clear that Judge Leon is attempting to force the Supreme Court to review the important Smith v. Maryland decision from 1979, the precedent that has been invoked to legally justify so much of this mass data collection. Given the significant changes in communications and technology, the judge no longer believes the decision is valid:

“[T]he question in this case can more properly be styled as follows: When do present-day circumstances — the evolutions in the government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits and the relation between the NSA and telecom companies — become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court that 34 years that to a precedent like Smith simply does not apply?”

The judge thinks the time is now. It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court not taking this case on.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    ..."It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court not taking this case on."

    Roberts will find it can be read as a tax, and commerce clause besides!

  • Marc F Cheney||

    It'll be in the penumbra and emanations of something or other.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    The NSA is paid with tax dollars, ergo it falls under the authority to tax.

  • Almanian!||

    Also, promote the general welfare

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    And social justice for all.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Compelling NEED!

  • CE||

    If you don't provide your data willingly, the NSA's data collection will be considered a payment-in-kind tax on your cell phone and email habits.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    He will not need to go beyond the text of the 4th Amendment himself. The problem with the 4th is that it does not say no searches, or even no searches without a warrant, just no unreasonable searches. So any judge who wants to OK a search just has to find it was reasonable.

  • Zeb||

    Still a bit of a stretch to say that a search of absolutely everyone is reasonable by any standard.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Unreasonable is defined in the second clause as any search/seizure without a warrant.

  • Not an Economist||

    Considering he also released information on America's spying on foreign nations which is obviously constitutional I'm not quite sure how to take his views on what is constitutional.

  • Almanian!||

    derp

  • ||

    It seems that not only are you not an economist, you're not much of a thinker either. Anything else you're not?

  • Not an Economist||

    So you think spying on foreign countries is unconstitutional. Interesting.

  • ||

    So you think the fact that the NSA is technically allowed to spy on other countries, and Snowden released information about that along with the fact that they're spying domestically, might invalidate his views on what is constitutional, even though we know the domestic spying is not consitutional, which is why he released info in the first place.

    That's not interesting, it's flat out stupid. You really should change your handle to "Not a Thinker".

  • Not an Economist||

    I'll expand my explanation since apparently you are too dumb to think it through. Snowden stole a bunch of files. Some of it appears (to be nice to the government) to show unconstitutional activity by the government. Other shows probable constitutional activity by the government. So if he was just concerned about unconstitutional activity by the government then why release the constitutional stuff?

    To use an analogy, say somebody broke into a bank safe deposit vault. Stole a lot of stuff from a lot of safe deposit boxes. Turns out it was an inside job. The thief releases information proving the bank president was embezzling. Well if that was is whole reason for breaking into the vault, why steal the rest of the stuff? Apparently all you care about is the bank manager getting caught. You don’t care about the little old lady who had her family heirlooms stolen.

  • ||

    Wow, that's amazingly stupid. Congratulations. You certainly can't call yourself "Not a Mongoloid" now.

    So, Snowden goes into a system and gets evidence of a lot of activity. You, in your omnipotence, having no idea how that information may have been bundled together or stored within the system, just "know" that Snowden should have been able to get the information he wanted without pulling down some other info as well. Since you "know" this, you feel comfortable calling into question Snowden's motives, because you're such an inside player in this whole deal that you are in possession of all the facts. In fact, you're so knowledgeable that you feel you can equate him to a bank robber with no further information. Sounds logical and not at all like an attempt to smear Snowden and cover for the NSA.

    Go suck some NSA cock somewhere else, Not a Genius.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Even if it wasn't bundled his argument fails. I'm not aware of anything that Snowden released that could be characterized as the family heirlooms of some little old woman.

  • Not an Economist||

    Stop sucking Snowden's cock.

    Yes it is possible Snowden gathered more information than what he wanted when he searched for proof of wrongdoing. But why did he release it? I notice you didn't answer that question. I'll say it again. Why did he release that additional information?

  • ||

    Why did he release that additional information?

    This question is so pointless and irrelevant that I can only see one reason for you to ask it, which is to attempt to distract from the damning information that he did release. The entire focus of every single post you have made in this thread is to cast as much doubt on Snowden as possible, to distract from the damning info he released, and to attempt to frame the issue away from NSA wrongdoing and to focus it on Snowden's character, said character being utterly irrelevant to the information released.

    So, here's the question I know you'll avoid like the plague: why are you more concerned with impugning Snowden's character than with the contents of what he released? Oh, I know why; because you're a complete scumbag NSA total state water carrier. I can only hope they get interested in you. Way, way too interested.

  • Not an Economist||

    And again you didn't answer the question You must not like your answer.

    And as a bonus I'll answer your question (You know the one you think I'll avoid like a plague). I am concerned with what he released. Some of it shows the US government is doing things which are unconstitutional. People should be fired and maybe even put into jail for that. Some of what he released is perfectly constitutional and legal. And it is not all that hard to tell the difference. Right now I think Snowden is about 50% right and 50% wrong. That is not a good average.

  • ||

    Amazing; you managed to pretend to answer the question yet managed to utterly not answer the question.

    What possible fucking difference does certain "percentages" of Snowden being "right and wrong" (what the fuck does that even mean?) have to do with anything, especially the stuff he released that was unconstitutional? How in any fucking possible universe is Snowden's "average" relevant?

    So once again, without fail, you have attempted to distract from the NSA's wrongdoing by trying to make this about Snowden, even though Snowden is absolutely irrelevant here.

    Come on, keep doing this. It's kind of hilarious. Does the NSA know you shill for them this hard? Are you hoping you can get a job with them? I hear fluffer is open, and that seems to be what you're angling for.

  • Not an Economist||

    Okay. I get it. I can't criticize Saint Edward Snowden (Hallowed Be His Name). He has the One True Understanding of the Constitution of the United States. His true believers punish those who blaspheme his Name. Right and wrong have no application to Saint Snowden since he can do no wrong.

    I am sorry for my belief that spying on countries other than the US is constitutional and legal. Saint Snowden has said otherwise. I'm sorry I am unwilling to blindly take Saint Snowden's word as gospel since so many have lied to me before. I am so sorry thinking members of the NSA might belong in jail as that is not punishment enough for their crimes. So tell me Episarch, Prophet of Saint Snowden, tell me Saint Snowden's opinion of the 2nd amendment.

  • ||

    So...your brilliant response is to once again talk about Snowden, only Snowden, and nothing but Snowden.

    You sure are doing a bang-up job of proving that your entire purpose is to talk about Snowden and not the NSA. Thanks, I appreciate your candor, if not your idiocy.

  • Not an Economist||

    Wow, I always thought "I" was a personal pronoun. Guess I was wrong.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That isn't a good analogy. The NSA was working with European counterparts to violate the rights of citizens of other countries. That may not be covered by our Constitution but it is still wrong.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    There are, to be sure, extradition treaties, and the like, with various and sundry other countries that allow for the prosecution of nationals foreign to said sundry countries, for instance, employees of the NSA, for the violation of the laws of said foreign, sundry countries, for example, in the EU, perhaps, for violations of privacy, and the like.

    I think that I just broke my previous comma record.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The "constitutional" stuff helps to put the unconstitutional shit in to context anyway. Plus, that information belongs to the American public, the government is not naturally entitled to anything remaining secret. If they don't want info to get out, they shouldn't put that info down on any media in the first place. This goes for all "intellectual property".

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'm not worried about the "constitutional" stuff that Snowden dropped, because it reeks like dog shit too. The unconstitutional shit happened as an extension of the "constitutional" stuff.

    And, tapping the phone lines belonging to someone else is criminal no matter who does it. No pass for the government unless they declare war on the target.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Let it be known:

    This is further evidence of how much of a god damn wiener Tulpa is.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Oh, come on! We are waaayy past needing any evidence for that!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I think it's been proven mathematically.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "relation between the NSA and telecom companies"

    There should be NO relation between the NSA and data service providers, as those providers should be considered ethical agents of their clients' information. NSA is not even a law enforcement agency, and as such, have no legal warrant requesting powers. Any concern service providers have with questionable information that comes to light through the execution of their services should only be brought up with appropriate authorities.

  • Hugh Akston||

    (Seriously, they’re stopping just short of throwing up Vine clips of themselves making out with a PDF of the ruling).

    Episiarch will be using this ruling as a masturbatory aide on his webcam this evening, but to be fair he does that with all federal court rulings anyway.

  • ||

    Remember, a subscription is only $4.99/month! Refer someone and you get a week free! Except for Hugh, he no longer gets that deal since he signed up the entire population of San Quentin. I can only take so many marriage proposals from inmates, Hugh. So once again, thanks for nothing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Hey, most camwhores would kill for an audience that big.

  • ||

    Yeah, but would they shank someone in the shower for it? I'd better be careful when I bend over for the soap. Well, more careful than usual, at least. Which is not at all.

  • jorgeborges||

    Look at how HuffPost is spinning this.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....ref=topbar

    I hope the author at least had the common decency to give Obama a reach-around while he was blowing him.

  • ||

    Circle the wagons around the Anointed One!

  • Copernicus||

    "I hope the author at least had the common decency to give Obama a reach-around while he was blowing him."

    I'm not gay (NTTAWWT) but even I know that that isn't when one administers the "reach around".

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    You can reach around while you are blowing someone, if you want to.

  • Copernicus||

    Of course one can always reach around from any position. But if you think about it, the reach around is supposed to originate posteriorally. Or, sans sugarcoating, the reach around occurs when one man (the penetrator) is butt-fucking another (the penetratee, and has the "common courtesy" to reach around and jack off the penetratee so that the penetratee can also achieve orgasm.

    I'm just sayin'.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The guy who successfully convinced a judge that the NSA's metadata program was likely unconstitutional is a conservative lawyer who once sued his own mother, is closely affiliated with the birther movement, and thinks President Barack Obama is a Muslim.

    And yet the NSA still lost to this guy in court. Man, the NSA sure does seem to have a terrible track record against deadbeat dropout cheating losers and conservative nutcase mother-hating scumbags.

  • datcv||

    When did huffpo start requiring a connection to Facebook in order to leave comments?

    I feel the need to pop some blood vessels in some liberaltards foreheads.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Ending NSA mass surveillance would be like ending the drug war in the sense that it would force a lot of government voyeurs and thugs to go out and find real productive jobs instead of getting paid to spy on and terrorize those who pay their goddamn salaries.

    Well, at least it would in my dreams.

  • RishJoMo||

    lol, I really like that snowden dude.

    www.AnonGoes.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement