> Regardless of the 4th amendment, we have separate laws that protect our communications, much in the same way we protect our medical records.
The ACLU raised some of those separate laws in this case, but those claims were dismissed for procedural reasons, including that Congress had only waived soveriegn immunity with regard to Section 215 orders to allow the recipients of the orders to challenge them, not the subjects of the orders.
There's no need to defend the transgression when no one with the interest in challenging them is permitted to challenge them.
The big problem here is that the entire idea of sovereign immunity -- the embodiment of the idea that the King is above the law, adapted to circumstances where there is no King -- is directly contrary to the concept of government bound by the rule of law.
The ACLU raised some of those separate laws in this case, but those claims were dismissed for procedural reasons, including that Congress had only waived soveriegn immunity with regard to Section 215 orders to allow the recipients of the orders to challenge them, not the subjects of the orders.
There's no need to defend the transgression when no one with the interest in challenging them is permitted to challenge them.
The big problem here is that the entire idea of sovereign immunity -- the embodiment of the idea that the King is above the law, adapted to circumstances where there is no King -- is directly contrary to the concept of government bound by the rule of law.