Lawsuit: Gov't Net Surveillance Breaches Constitution

The US government is being sued by civil liberties groups who say the security services' collection of personal data online fundamentally breaches the constitution. At issue is the question of whether or not the government's interpretation of the law correctly allows for mass surveillance without probable cause about specific individuals.

The lawsuit is led by the American Civil Liberties Union and is joined by at least nine other groups, including the organization that oversees Wikipedia. It makes the accusations against the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice.

The claims relate to what's known as "upstream surveillance", which means the government monitoring Internet data as it's being transmitted, often by having put bugs directly in the cabling and equipment that makes up the public Internet. It's a different issue to the much-discussed PRISM program, which instead gets the data from the records and servers of leading Internet sites and services.

Government Says Surveillance Has Legal Backing

The government says upstream surveillance is legal because of security laws passed in 2008 and 2011, along with a subsequent order issued by a court that convenes in secret. That single court order has been interpreted as valid to cover tens of thousands of individuals and groups. (Source: cnn.com)

The groups bringing the lawsuit argue that this legal strategy doesn't do enough to answer the constitutional requirement that the government and its agencies show probable cause before the more serious breaches of a suspect's right to privacy. They say the government agencies are breaching the first and fourth amendments of the United States Constitution; the first amendment upholds the freedom of speech, press, and religion, while the fourth amendment "prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause."

They also argue the court order used to justify the surveillance goes beyond the judicial powers granted by article three of the constitution, which establishes the judicial branch of the federal government.

Snowden Leaks May Be Game-Changer

A previous attempt to bring a similar case was thrown out by the Supreme Court, which pointed out that (logically enough given the secrecy involved) the groups making the complaint couldn't prove they'd been harmed by the alleged legal breaches. (Source: nytimes.com)

This time, the groups say things are different because of the NSA documents leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden. They argue that because these documents confirm the NSA targeted users of particular sites, both those users and the sites had their rights compromised.

What's Your Opinion?

Should the government have the right to monitor online communications as they happen for security reasons? Is it sufficient to rely on a single court order covering tens of thousands of potential suspects without proving they may be a security threat? Or does the sheer scope of the Internet make it impractical to get specific court orders for each individual who might come under the monitoring?