Judge Rules Terrorism Watchlist Violates Constitutional Rights

[Palmpilot]

A federal judge has ruled that the federal Terrorist Screening Database has inadequate protections for due process rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/politics/terrorism-watchlist-constitution.html

This list, which contained about 1.2 million names as of 2017, is much broader than the No Fly List, which has previously been the subject of similar rulings.

 

[James331]

Good.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[denverpilot]

“Let’s build expensive illegal things and then wait and see if anyone notices. We can’t go to jail for it.” - Federal Law Enforcement.

Cop 101. You can keep a list of suspects but you can’t ACT on it until they do something illegal.

We shouldn’t NEED this court case or the judge to rule if they were acting like law enforcement professionals should act.

Throwing blatantly illegal things to the wall and seeing if they stick is what criminals do.

It’s probably a good sign the magic T word isn’t working for them as an excuse anymore, at least in one courtroom.

 

[wsuffa]

The real issue is the secrecy and lack of due process - in other words, there's no way to challenge the designation (or incorrect information) because you're not supposed to know you're on the list.

 

[wilkersk]

I don’t mind collecting meta-data and developing profiles as long as they have reasonable cause before they act on it. Go live abroad for a year or two, then come back and compare.

 

[Zeldman]

Next my security cameras and door locks will be considered unconstitutional.

ITBL

 

[denverpilot]

The real issue is the secrecy and lack of due process - in other words, there's no way to challenge the designation (or incorrect information) because you're not supposed to know you're on the list.

Actually it’s the action caused by the list that broke due process, but the judge wants his cake and to eat it too.

A relief valve of “oh we screwed up, we’ll let you off the list” isn’t a true fix for the problem of law enforcement telling third parties to take actions based upon suspect lists.

 

[wsuffa]

Actually it’s the action caused by the list that broke due process, but the judge wants his cake and to eat it too.

A relief valve of “oh we screwed up, we’ll let you off the list” isn’t a true fix for the problem of law enforcement telling third parties to take actions based upon suspect lists.

No disagreement, but if one doesn't know they're on the list, there is no accountability.

 

[denverpilot]

No disagreement, but if one doesn't know they're on the list, there is no accountability.

We’re all probably on many lists, it’s the action from the list that is unconstitutional. A cop can write my name in their little black book as suspicious, no harm no foul.

Of course there’s this news tossed out quietly on a Friday...

DOJ demands Apple and Google give a full list of app users of an app designed to help calibrate a popular rifle scope...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomas...over-names-of-10000-users-of-a-gun-scope-app/

See if Apple and Google tell them to go pound sand.At least with walled app gardens, they might be able to afford the fight of such an illegal request by spending some of those billions they made on apps.

Law Enforcement by Excel.

 

[James331]

I don’t mind collecting meta-data and developing profiles as long as they have reasonable cause before they act on it. Go live abroad for a year or two, then come back and compare.

Lol, abroad like in china???? yeah it’s super awesome when big government collects metadata and gets all in people business and makes lists.

It’s almost like there are these things called history books, most everything these days is a re run, and the big goverment mass surveillance being suspicious of its own citizens story has played a few times