Court Dismisses ACLU Case Against Internet Surveillance
Oct 24, 2015 10:36:31 GMT -6
Nugget and Glencairn like this
Post by Rickster on Oct 24, 2015 10:36:31 GMT -6
SOURCE:
So what the court said is you can't prove there is any surveillance going on so the lawsuit is pointless. I guess all those SNowden documents released mean nothing, and the overwhelming evidence of telecoms help is useless.
Kind of makes you wonder what kind of world we will have in say 10 years. The place is starting to look more like China everyday.
"A federal district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a broad group of organizations challenging the National Security Agency’s mass interception and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications.
The court held that the plaintiffs in the case had not plausibly alleged that their communications were being monitored by the NSA.
The plaintiffs are the Wikimedia Foundation, the Rutherford Institute, The Nation magazine, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Global Fund for Women, and Washington Office on Latin America."
The court held that the plaintiffs in the case had not plausibly alleged that their communications were being monitored by the NSA.
The plaintiffs are the Wikimedia Foundation, the Rutherford Institute, The Nation magazine, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Global Fund for Women, and Washington Office on Latin America."
So what the court said is you can't prove there is any surveillance going on so the lawsuit is pointless. I guess all those SNowden documents released mean nothing, and the overwhelming evidence of telecoms help is useless.
"Today’s ruling cites the Supreme Court’s decision in a previous ACLU lawsuit challenging the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, Clapper v. Amnesty. The Supreme Court dismissed that case in February 2013 in a 5–4 vote on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been spied on."