Tell me about the 'secret laws'

You don't fucking get it, do you? How can he tell you about a secret law? The ACLU and other organizations continue to ask the government that very same question, but the government refuses.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the Nation's Capital, and Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed a motion today with the secret court that oversees government surveillance in national security cases, requesting that it publish its opinions on the meaning, scope, and constitutionality of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section, which authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigations, was the legal basis for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order revealed last week by The Guardian requiring Verizon to turn over months' worth of phone-call data.

"The ultimate check on governmental overreach is the American public," said Alex Abdo, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "For years, the government has secretly relied on sweeping interpretations of its surveillance powers, preventing the very debate it has now belatedly invited on the wisdom and legality of those powers."

In addition to the initial rulings by the court on Section 215, the motion filed today also asks whether earlier opinions have been revisited in light of more recent rulings by other courts, such as the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in the GPS tracking case U.S. v. Jones. Another answer sought by the motion is whether the FISA Court has considered the constitutionality of the "gag order" that bars companies from revealing that they have been ordered to turn over information under Section 215. (In 2008, a federal appeals court agreed with the ACLU that an analogous gag order provision relating to "national security letters" was unconstitutional.)

"In a democracy, there should be no room for secret law," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "The public has a right to know what limits apply to the government's surveillance authority, and what safeguards are in place to protect individual privacy."

Also, don't wonder why the world tells you to go fuck yourself when you ask for Snowden. If you weren't murdering teenagers with completely illegal and immoral drone strike programs after killing a few hundred thousand civilians in multiple wars of aggression, maybe everyone wouldn't burst out in laughter every time you uttered the phrase "rule of law."

Easy, buddy. Back in the day it was an old joke:

Fanboi: Name one thing that your PC can do that my Mac can't!!
Operator: Right-click.

Today's analog is:

Fanboi: Name one thing that your Android can do that my iPhone can't!!
Operator: Run applications without Apple's permission.

When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

Yeah.

And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.

And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.

Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)

It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.

Oops, I forgot to put "(PDF)" after the link to the Judge's 24 page decision, which is indeed a PDF file. I always like to give that heads-up, but forgot to this time.

Are you talking about my law firm web site or my blog post on blogger.com?

I don't have the power to do that; the site was set up with Yahoo Site Solutions which is pure junk, and doesn't let you do anything.

It's a net win - just like factory automation reducing the number of factory workers is a net win. Also, Walmart really pisses off hipsters, so it's twice as good

Yeah, I fucking replaced ten people with one robot, and I was the last manufacturing business in town. It's a win-win! Well, if you count me twice. Which I do.

Higher taxes for everyone else comes from voting for bigger government, not from Walmarts.

Oh, Fuck. Off. When Walmart drives out all of the Mom and Pops where any slacker in the 90s could earn 9-12 dollars an hour can't make 7.50 an hour plus benefits because instead of the store being a little lax on inventory, or God Forbid you had to wait an entire week to get that thing you saw in the catalog, we decided to get everything fast and now and made like shit by child laborers in southeast asia. And we got to buy the Waltons a goddamn hawaiian island so they can drink themselves to death in front of a nice view.

Gee, for me, there's a downside in that scenario. But as long as we get more efficient, everything's good for everyone equally, right?

I would love to be a judge, but it ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for the advice. Wish I had a clue as to what to do about it.

Regrettably, they vary from judge to judge and from court to court and are not predictable, since they are "discretionary".

I can tell you that if I were deciding UMG v Veoh I would have awarded Veoh its attorneys fees.