A U.S. judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of the National Security Agency in a lawsuit challenging the interception of Internet communications without a warrant, according to a court filing. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland, California wrote the plaintiffs failed to establish legal standing to pursue a claim that the government violated the Fourth Amendment.
The ruling is the latest in litigation over the government's ability to monitor Internet traffic, and how it balances national security priorities against privacy.
Once the surveillance law enters in force, the IMSI-catchers (technology used for intercepting communication) can be used by secret services to intercept communication, specifically mobile phone calls. However evidence exists that IMSI-catchers have already been in use, for example during the pursuit of the Kouachi brothers as mentioned by Senator Boutant. Moreover, there is official evidence regarding this purchase by public bodies.
National Assembly Digital Committee fears that the new intelligence bill will enable mass instead of targeted surveillance, especially given the existence of such operating measures as the ‘black-boxes’ and the IMSI-catcher (technology for interception communications), known to have been employed in the NSA practices.
On February 10th 2015, at the General Meeting of the Dutch House of Representatives concerning the Dutch Intelligence & Security Act of 2002 (Wiv2002),the Minister of the Interior promised to send a letter that provides information on three topics raised during the debate: the offer of a technical briefing on cable interception, the Privacy Impact Assessment requested by MP Gerard Schouw (D66), and an explanation of the further procedure of revising the Wiv2002. On March 17th 2015, the Minister sent the letter he promised. The PIA model, tailored to the legal tasks of the AIVD and MIVD, will be applied to the proposed changes to the existing Intelligence & Security Act of 2002.
The Commission on Justice of the Chamber of Deputies is working on the Law against defamation and about telephone interception. One proposal is to introduce the obligation for blogs to publish a correction within two days in case of incorrect data. It is also under discussion the issues regarding the right to be forgotten: in case of defamation all the information published on the web have to be removed.
EPIC has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding email privacy. At issue is Google's scanning of the email of non-Gmail users. EPIC argued that this is prohibited by the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. EPIC described Google's complex scanning and analysis of private communications, concluding that it was far more invasive than the interception of a telephone communications, prohibited by state law. A federal court in California recently ruled that non-Gmail users may sue Google for violation of the state wiretap law.