|
|
|
|
|
by lern_too_spel
2304 days ago
|
|
> they can't prove they have standing, The plaintiffs in Clapper v Amnesty would have standing if the program worked as you described. No documents have ever been released saying the program works as you described, including the documents Snowden leaked after that case. If such docu6were released, the case would be relitigated. Here is an article describing how it actually works, linking to multiple sources: https://www.cnet.com/news/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-... > "it would be illegal and shutdown like the other illegal programs documented here if it were actually illegal" How did one illegal program turn into multiple "illegal programs"? How do you come up with this stuff? |
|
No, because the way the system works is that information makes it's way to the NSA on the presence of certain search terms and is prefiltered before it ends up in their hands. The ruling by the supreme court in the case of PRISM is that amnesty international can't prove that they were among the search terms ever searched for, so they can't prove that they standing. Only if there was a leak of the actual keys slated for collection (or if the NSA agreed to release that, which would never happen), then they could relitigate.
This is in contrast to the bulk call data, where, because the NSA was collecting from everyone who made calls, standing could be confirmed.
> How did one illegal program turn into multiple "illegal programs"?
I'm bundling it up with the other programs Snowden leaked.