It is in fact probably unlawful for them to do so
I realize that the patriotic employees of the NSA work within a legal framework, and seemingly pride themselves on doing so. But they haven't bothered to share that framework with the rest of us. So my first response was to snicker to myself, and that's unfair to you.
Also, Hacking Team was Italian, not US, so would it really be illegal to slurp up all of HT's exploits? That is, if you want to stay within the bounds of the law, if not the bounds of ethical behavior.
They are definitely not allowed, under the Constitution, to monitor everyone, but they do it anyway. You know this too.
So why do you discuss legislation as if it mattered to the NSA, when their actions show it clearly doesn't?
The fact that they don't care about what laws say doesn't get any clearer than that.
The fact that no one from NSA has gone to jail for the NSA violating the Constitution shows.. well, pretty much that the government doesn't bother punishing itself for violating its own laws.
To be fair, that would be kind of silly, after all.
The Constitution is strictly a metric by which courts decide what laws are allowed to say. It binds Congress, not other government workers. And there's generally a presumption that a law is legal until decided to be unconstitutional in court, otherwise people would be afraid to do their jobs.
It is true that such would be unlikely to be prosecuted, especially if it was authorized from above (and, depending on how it was authorized, there might even be a legal defense -- while ignorance of the law is not a defense, reasonable reliance on legal representations of those responsible for enforcing the law can be), but there is a specific criminal statute that applies to government employees acting deliberately contrary to Constitutional rights (deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 USC Sec. 242.) And an unconstitutional program might also violate the criminal provisions of FISA.
So its not impossible for them to end up in jail, just unlikely for them to prosecuted.
> That's not how the Constitution works.
Sure, the Constitution itself doesn't provide criminal penalties, but there (as noted above) are statutory provisions creating criminal liability for government officers that use their position to deny people Constitutionally-protected rights.
> The Constitution is strictly a metric by which courts decide what laws are allowed to say. It binds Congress, not other government workers.
This is not, in fact, true. Government actions by actors other than Congress, and not justified by appeals to statute, can be decided on Constitutional grounds, both negative (Constitutional limitations) and positive (questions of whether positive authority is granted.)
Some parts of the Constitution, by their own terms, bind Congress directly (but even these have often been construed as more general restrictions on government power even when not exercised through Congress.)
Thank you for that. I think this would come under the "reasonable reliance on legal representations of those responsible for enforcing the law". Is the fact that a (later-to-be-declared-unconstitutional) law allows something itself a defense? I would strongly expect that to be the case, so to the extent that NSA programs were authorized by the Patriot act, even if said act is unconstitutional, workers would be immune.
In any event, following a later-declared-unconstitutional law does not seem to qualify as "deliberately contrary to Constitutional".
>Sure, the Constitution itself doesn't provide criminal penalties, but there (as noted above) are statutory provisions creating criminal liability for government officers that use their position to deny people Constitutionally-protected rights.
Fair enough.
>Government actions by actors other than Congress, and not justified by appeals to statute, can be decided on Constitutional grounds, both negative (Constitutional limitations) and positive (questions of whether positive authority is granted.)
If an action isn't warranted by statute, why would a court consider Constitutional issues at all? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance
Could you give an example?
(It can also bind other legislators, not just Congress, and can bind anyone after a court ruling, but that shouldn't get to criminal liability except insofar as that statute you mentioned above).
The appeals court did not rule on whether the surveillance violated the U.S. Constitution.
The second link has a ton of links. The first one is only referring to a preliminary injunction; i.e., it found that "there's a good chance the plaintiff will win", but did not find in favor of the plaintiff. As far as I can tell, all the other links there are about the same ruling.
The third link is talking about that same ruling, again:
A federal judge said Monday that he believes the government's once-secret collection of domestic phone records is unconstitutional
Emphasis on believes; that was not a judicial finding that the government violated the constitution.
He didn't even order the government to stop:
However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government.
What happened on appeal? http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ED64DC482..., or a more readable summary here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-28/u-s-appeal... and http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling-reverse...
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.
The NSA is a criminal organisation. I don't say everything they do is crime or that is there sole raison d'etre just that they don't care about the rule of law. The law is something that they don't need to worry about at all.
Does anyone really dispute that? "I gave the least untruthful answer I could..." Lying under oath. No consequences for that crime or any other.
No respect for the rule of law.
Please don't miss that point, the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it.
> the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the organization that makes the laws is, by definition, above them. The government is not bound by its own laws any more than a King or Emperor by his, back in the day.
The reason why you see crimes go unpunished is that people with political power and/or connections are effectively above the law.
This is just your cognitive dissonance talking.
You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months.. years?), even though Habeas Corpus was supposed to apply.
> The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged.
Why would you expect that? If the president murders his spouse, he's probably reasonably sure he'll get away with it. Otherwise he probably wouldn't.
> By definition the rule of law applies to all.
That's what we're trained to believe.. so many TV shows and movies show police officers risking their lives in fighting crime and courts being fair and just and all, but have you ever dealt with the court system? Did you get justice?
You've probably heard of "plea-bargaining", right? http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12556-overwhelming-use-of...
People are blackmailed into accepting a punishment for something they haven't done, to avoid the potential life-ruining punishment for whatever outrageous bullshit they're charged with (that they haven't done either).
And you insist that everything is fine?
Maybe this will clarify things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U
So many civilians get this wrong it isn't funny, but the only code that applies to US military members is the UCMJ (uniformed code of military justice), of which Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was a member of.
Source: I'm a US Army veteran and learned all about this.
I won't.
This is a positive comment, not a normative one. I don't know how I feel about entities busting up companies like HT, but I do think I know that the world would be better off without companies like HT.