NSA tracking all our Web activity

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

NSA Surveillance Pits Liberty Against Security

Quote:

The
Washington Post and The Guardian later added a new twist: that the NSA and FBI have for six years received information from the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and YouTube. That program, code-named PRISM, lets the government track people's movements and contacts through audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs, the Post said.

Unless you live under a rock, surely you know by now about Verizon Wireless surrendering call data to the NSA and Google, Apple, MS, Yahoo, AOL, Paltalk, etc. allowing realtime monitoring of all web activity by the NSA. Supposedly, our actual phone conversations aren't being listened in on and the web activity monitoring is only targeted at those who are outside the USA. But I wonder, can this be believed? Just the fact that they've been doing this secretly since 06 causes me to distrust anything the NSA and Obama administration say about this.

So my question is, knowing that this has been going on, will you change your Web use habits, stop using the Web altogether (yeah, right) or just continue on as usual?

I plan to continue using the Web of course, but will abide by the rule I like to follow: Don't post anything online you wouldn't want your grandmother to read.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

I occasionally like to post messages specifically for them to read, like
"bomb bomb suck my d**k fibbies"

...So basically, no.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

As much as I'd love to do that, the arrest of Cam D'Ambrosio for posting rap lyrics to his Facebook gives me pause.

[psychic stalker]

Yami no Hitokiri

So my question is, knowing that this has been going on, will you change your Web use habits, stop using the Web altogether (yeah, right) or just continue on as usual?

I can't. My livelihood depends on using the web. So it's not possible for me to simply stop using it.

But it certainly gives me and others ammunition with which to sue the US government over this unconstitutional abuse of power by the NSA.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

How would that even be possible, given that the courts are part of the government? They wouldn't even give us the time of day.

[psychic stalker]

Yami no Hitokiri

How would that even be possible, given that the courts are part of the government? They wouldn't even give us the time of day.

They're required to by Constitutional Law. Specifically, the provisions for due process.

All Constitutional matters of Law are ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they usually strongly oppose the abuse of governmental powers. So far, the SCOTUS hasn't been given a case covering this yet.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

The SCOTUS is full of Bush appointees. I haven't much faith in them.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

They're so good at spinning. Apparently the Obama admin has come out to say "Oh, we can't LISTEN to your phone calls, we just know who you called at what time and for how long!" as if warrantless surveillance is any better when it's invasive, but not as invasive as they've been accused of.

[N3bu]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

They're so good at spinning. Apparently the Obama admin has come out to say "Oh, we can't LISTEN to your phone calls, we just know who you called at what time and for how long!" as if warrantless surveillance is any better when it's invasive, but not as invasive as they've been accused of.

You'll also notice, that despite deny listening on local calls, they don't deny listening to foreign calls.

[Tanooki John]

I wouldn't be surprised if the US let foreign gov. members in on peoples private conversations. This NSA and PRISM stuff has gone way too far. This proves that we can no longer trust our government. George Washington once said that "Government is not reason: it is not eloquence: it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

[kiraes]

psychic stalker

But it certainly gives me and others ammunition with which to sue the US government over this unconstitutional abuse of power by the NSA.

Unfortunately, no matter how much ammunition you have, you cannot sue the US government. It has sovereign immunity.

[psychic stalker]

kiraes

psychic stalker

But it certainly gives me and others ammunition with which to sue the US government over this unconstitutional abuse of power by the NSA.

Unfortunately, no matter how much ammunition you have, you cannot sue the US government. It has sovereign immunity.

Where the hell did you get this ridiculous nonsensical idea? Of course you can sue the government.

Jewel v. NSA (3:2008-cv-04373) was filed in 2008 and is a class-action lawsuit over the Bush administration's abuse of surveillance powers. This lawsuit lists the United States of America, George W. Bush, John D. Ashcroft, John M. Mcconnell, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Dennis Blair, among others, as defendants. The most recent order in this case was filed by presiding Judge Jeffrey White, where he flatly denied the US Government's motion to dismiss the case on grounds of National Security.

So please don't go talking out of your a** when you don't have a clue what's actually going on in the Courts. Especially don't make specious claims like this when I can just go look in PACER.

[kiraes]

psychic stalker

kiraes

psychic stalker

But it certainly gives me and others ammunition with which to sue the US government over this unconstitutional abuse of power by the NSA.

Unfortunately, no matter how much ammunition you have, you cannot sue the US government. It has sovereign immunity.

Where the hell did you get this ridiculous nonsensical idea? Of course you can sue the government.

Jewel v. NSA (3:2008-cv-04373) was filed in 2008 and is a class-action lawsuit over the Bush administration's abuse of surveillance powers. This lawsuit lists the United States of America, George W. Bush, John D. Ashcroft, John M. Mcconnell, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Dennis Blair, among others, as defendants. The most recent order in this case was filed by presiding Judge Jeffrey White, where he flatly denied the US Government's motion to dismiss the case on grounds of National Security.

So please don't go talking out of your a** when you don't have a clue what's actually going on in the Courts. Especially don't make specious claims like this when I can just go look in PACER.

Multiple court cases, including Kansas v US (not the best example, as it establishes immunity from being sued by the states, searching through court cases is a pain in the a**), support the idea of federal sovereign immunity. State sovereign immunity is established through the 11th amendment. Both the state and federal governments have, in the past, waived their sovereign immunity voluntarily in previous court cases.

With regards to Jewel v NSA, this might get through under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the governments sovereign immunity if one can prove that they have in some way harmed or wronged you, though I have not looked into how it was filed. That said, after reading this, I read a bit more on the case, and while the government cannot dismiss the case under a state secrets privilege, the judge noted that they can still dismiss some of the claims under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

[psychic stalker]

kiraes

Multiple court cases, including Kansas v US (not the best example, as it establishes immunity from being sued by the states, searching through court cases is a pain in the a**), support the idea of federal sovereign immunity. State sovereign immunity is established through the 11th amendment. Both the state and federal governments have, in the past, waived their sovereign immunity voluntarily in previous court cases.

Given that you aren't citing a specific case (I can find two: 204 U.S. 331 (1907) and 214 F.3d 1196 (2000), neither of which seem to support your claim), I can't comment on that. But the 11th amendment is not sovereign immunity. It clarifies the power of the US Federal Courts and the Courts of the individual States in matters of interstate law and civil suits, namely that the Federal Government doesn't get involved in disputes with the States. It says next to nothing about suing the Federal Government.

I can find nothing in Constitutional Law that grants the Federal Government immunity from Courts hearing the grievances of the Citizens. This is all in Federal Laws. There are many waivers of sovereign immunity that the public can use, and the plaintiffs in Jewel v. NSA use several of them.

kiraes

With regards to Jewel v NSA, this might get through under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the governments sovereign immunity if one can prove that they have in some way harmed or wronged you, though I have not looked into how it was filed. That said, after reading this, I read a bit more on the case, and while the government cannot dismiss the case under a state secrets privilege, the judge noted that they can still dismiss some of the claims under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The Judge specifically denies the statutory claims for damages and injunctive relief. It does not weaken the case.

This is made clear if you read more of the order rather than just doing a keyword search.

Nevertheless, your original assertion that "you cannot sue the US government" is provably idiotic nonsense.

[Caustic Fox]