ACLU v. NSA - ACLU wins

quote:

Wiretap Project Ruled Illegal Warrantless domestic eavesdropping violates the Constitution, a judge rules, sharply rebuffing claims that Bush has unwritten powers. By Henry Weinstein Times Staff Writer August 18, 2006 A federal judge in Detroit ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless domestic wiretapping program is unconstitutional and must be halted. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held that the wiretapping program violates the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution, which respectively protect free speech and prohibit unlawful searches. She also held that the program, formally known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program and run by the National Security Agency, violates the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the separation-of-powers doctrine. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3301,full.story

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=364293

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 ACLU v. NSA - ACLU wins http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=364293

This is an interesting and unexpected turn of events; which I guess is the only thing we can expect in uncertain times.

ACLU v. NSA

quote:

U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements. According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision. According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.” “This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.” (Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.) http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml

Signing Statements

quote:

Presidential "Signing Statements" By James L. Clark Sep 2, 2006 In its annual meeting this month, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (traditionally at odds with republican administrations) approved the report of an ABA taskforce regarding "presidential signing statements," addendums provided by the president to bills passed by Congress and enacted into law with his signature. The report began with this resolution: "That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."

Don't be surprised if you see a lawsuit come up about these sometime soon.

AOL search data

quote:

AOL sued over Web search data release September 25, 2006 12:17 PM PDT As expected, AOL has been sued over its online release of data on the Internet searches of more than 650,000 members in late July. A lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against AOL on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit (click here for PDF) accuses AOL of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and of fraudulent and deceptive business practices, among other claims, and seeks at least $5,000 for every person whose search data was exposed. No AOL user names were attached to the database, but the lawsuit alleges that the search terms contain enough personal information to identify the searchers. Although AOL pulled the data, it continues to remain accessible on other Web sites that reposted it, according to the lawsuit. An AOL spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit. AOL had put the roughly 20 million search queries on one of its research-related Web sites but pulled it and apologized after the matter came to light. Two AOL employees were fired and the chief technology officer resigned over the incident. The release of the data prompted widespread criticism from privacy advocates and Congress. In addition, AOL faces a Federal Trade Commission complaint. http://news.com.com/2061-10803_3-61...19218&subj=news

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data