OAKLAND, Calif.A federal judge spent over four hours on Friday questioning lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and from the Department of Justice in an ongoing digital surveillance-related lawsuit that has dragged on for more than six years. <\/p>\n
During the hearing, US District Judge Jeffrey White heard arguments from both sides in his attempt to wrestle with the plaintiffs July 2014 motion for partial summary judgment. He went back and forth between the two sides, hearing answers to his list of 12 questions that were published earlier this week in a court filing. <\/p>\n
That July 2014 motion asks the court to find that the government is \"violating the Fourth Amendment by their ongoing seizures and searches of plaintiffs Internet communications.\" The motion specifically doesnt deal with allegations of past government wrongdoing, nor other issues in the broader case. <\/p>\n
The case, known as Jewel v. National Security Agency (NSA), was originally brought by the EFF on behalf of Carolyn Jewel, a romance novelist who lives in Petaluma, California, north of San Francisco. For years, the case stalled in the court system, but it gained new life after the Edward Snowden disclosures last summer. <\/p>\n
In the 2008 original complaint (PDF), Jewel and the other plaintiffs alleged that the government and AT&T were engaged in an \"illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency and other Defendants in concert with major telecommunications companies.\" The evidence stemmed from materials leaked by former San Francisco AT&T technician Mark Klein in 2006. As Jewel was and remains an AT&T customer, her communications were intercepted by the company on behalf of the NSA, her attorneys argue. <\/p>\n
Much of the language invoked by both sides revolves around what the EFF has called a four-stage process as illustrated in the July 2014 motion (as shown above). <\/p>\n
Richard Wiebe, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, countered: \"The government can't circumvent the Fourth Amendment simply by automating its searches and seizures.\" <\/p>\n
\"If suddenly our homes were being searched by drones, that wouldn't be permissible under the Fourth Amendment?\" he added later. <\/p>\n
\"What really matters is not what the government gains but what the plaintiffs lose: they lose privacy and control of their communications. That's really what we're talking about. The Fourth Amendment protects us all against mass surveillance of our papers.\" <\/p>\n
Eventually, Wiebe concluded: <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original here: OAKLAND, Calif.A federal judge spent over four hours on Friday questioning lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and from the Department of Justice in an ongoing digital surveillance-related lawsuit that has dragged on for more than six years. During the hearing, US District Judge Jeffrey White heard arguments from both sides in his attempt to wrestle with the plaintiffs July 2014 motion for partial summary judgment Continue reading
\nEFF: Feds cant get around Fourth Amendment via automated data capture<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"