a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
mesocratic's comments
mesocratic  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: It’s so hard to know what role, if any.

    This information needs to be out there!
Rather: We need to have more articles to place advertisement on!
rezzeJ  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Haha, yes, there is that.

mesocratic  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Government of the people, for the people, by the people

I wonder if that last part only pertains to that court, like if this would need to be a case for a higher court, or just 'no' period.

mk  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I believe it's a general ruling, in that the court does not believe the evidence can be made public, in that court, or another.

alpha0  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Some speculation on the related HN thread is that the judge is trying to force higher courts to get involved.

mesocratic  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Government of the people, for the people, by the people

To me this reads:

    the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find they have standing to sue under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their Internet communications.
You don't have sufficient evidence to support this case.
    Further, having reviewed the Government Defendants’ classified submissions, the Court finds that the Claim must be dismissed because even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require impermissible disclosure of state secret information.
Furthermore, even if you did have enough evidence to support the case, the defendant can't properly defend their case because doing so would disclose Secret Information (because the case would be public.)
mk  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's my read as well.

You can't prove that you have been wronged, and even if you could, then we can't talk about it.

mesocratic  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I wonder if that last part only pertains to that court, like if this would need to be a case for a higher court, or just 'no' period.

mk  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I believe it's a general ruling, in that the court does not believe the evidence can be made public, in that court, or another.

alpha0  ·  1876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Some speculation on the related HN thread is that the judge is trying to force higher courts to get involved.