老澳门开奖结果

NEW YORK 鈥� In a landmark decision, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled today that the NSA鈥檚 phone-records surveillance program is unlawful.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the statute the government is relying on to justify the bulk collection of phone records 鈥� Section 215 of the Patriot Act 鈥� does not permit the gathering of Americans鈥� sensitive information on such a massive scale. The case was filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 and the New York Civil Liberties Union in June 2013, immediately after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed the existence of the program.

鈥淭he current reform proposals from Congress look anemic in light of the serious issues raised by the Second Circuit,鈥� said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the 老澳门开奖结果. 鈥淐ongress needs to up its reform game if it鈥檚 going to address the court鈥檚 concerns.鈥�

The government had argued in the case, 老澳门开奖结果 v. Clapper, that the court should not consider the lawfulness of the program at all, arguing that the 老澳门开奖结果 lacked 鈥渟tanding鈥� to challenge the surveillance and that Congress had 鈥減recluded鈥� judicial review except by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret, rarely publishes its decisions, and generally hears argument only from the government. Today鈥檚 decision rejects those arguments.

The ruling aligns with the lower court decision in a similar lawsuit in Washington, Klayman v. Obama, in which U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found the NSA program to be likely unconstitutional. The government鈥檚 appeal of that case was argued on November 4. Another challenge to the phone-records program was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 4.

鈥淭his decision is a resounding victory for the rule of law,鈥� said 老澳门开奖结果 Staff Attorney Alex Abdo, who argued the case before the three-judge panel in September. 鈥淔or years, the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority. The court rightly rejected the government鈥檚 theory that it may stockpile information on all of us in case that information proves useful in the future. Mass surveillance does not make us any safer, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society.鈥�

The 老澳门开奖结果 is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which, as revealed in The Guardian, received a secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court compelling the company to turn over 鈥渙n an ongoing daily basis鈥� phone call details such as whom calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argued that the government鈥檚 blanket seizure of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 phone records compromises the organization鈥檚 ability to carry out its work and to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, whistleblowers, and others.

鈥淭his ruling focuses on the phone-records program, but it has far broader significance, because the same defective legal theory that underlies this program underlies many of the government鈥檚 other mass-surveillance programs,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, 老澳门开奖结果 deputy legal director and lead counsel in the case. 鈥淭he ruling warrants a reconsideration of all of those programs, and it underscores once again the need for truly systemic reform.鈥�

The court wrote in its opinion, 鈥淚f the government is correct, it could use Section 215 to collect and store in bulk any other existing metadata available anywhere in the private sector, including metadata associated with financial records, medical records, and electronic communications (including e鈥恗ail and social media information) relating to all Americans. Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans.鈥�

The attorneys on the case are Jaffer and Abdo along with Brett Max Kaufman and Patrick Toomey of the 老澳门开奖结果, and Arthur N. Eisenberg and Christopher T. Dunn of the NYCLU.

Today鈥檚 ruling is at:
/sites/default/files/field_document/clapper-ca2-opinion.pdf

The concurring opinion is at:
/sites/default/files/field_document/clapper-ca2-sack-concurrence.pdf