Ƙungiyar 'Yancin Dan Adam ta Amurka v. Clapper
| Iri |
legal case (en)  |
|---|---|
American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2nd Cir., 2015), wata kungiya e na American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) da reshenta, New York Civil Liberties Union, a kan gwamnatin tarayya ta Amurka. kamar yadda Daraktan leken asiri na kasa James Clapper ya wakilta. ACLU ta kalubalanci doka da tsarin mulki na Hukumar Tsaro ta Kasa (NSA) na babban tsarin tattara bayanan wayar salula. [1]
Tun da farko dai an yi watsi da ƙalubalen a Kotun Lardi, amma an soke hukuncin a matakin kotun da’ira. Duk da haka, wannan takamaiman hukuncin daga baya ya zama mara tushe lokacin da Majalisar Dokokin Amurka ta fayyace hanyoyin sa ido na NSA a cikin Dokar 'Yancin Amurka ta 2015.
Fage
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]Shari’ar dai ta taso ne biyo bayan bayanan da Edward Snowden ya yi a shekarar 2013, wanda ke nuna tsarin sa ido a duniya daga hukumar ta NSA da abokan huldar ta na kasa da kasa. [2] A cikin wani wahayi na musamman, The Guardian ya ruwaito cewa Kotun Kula da Leken Asiri ta Waje, bisa buƙatar NSA, ta umarci Verizon da ta ba da ƙimar bayanan sadarwar sirri na watanni da yawa ga yawancin abokan cinikinta. An mika lambobin wayar duka bangarorin biyu a kan kiran, kamar yadda aka yi kiran wurin, lokaci, da tsawon lokaci. Abubuwan da ke cikin tattaunawar ba a rufe su cikin tsari ba, amma ana iya tattara metadata ba tare da izini ba a ƙarƙashin Sashe na 215 na Dokar Patriot . [2]
ACLU ta kai karar Daraktan Leken Asiri na kasa James Clapper, Daraktan NSA Keith B. Alexander, Sakataren Tsaro Chuck Hagel, Attorney Janar Eric Holder, da kuma darektan FBI Robert Mueller, suna iƙirarin cewa shirin sa ido na NSA ya keta gyare-gyare na farko da na huɗu, kuma musamman. da garanti bukatun na karshen. [3] Musamman, ACLU ta ba da hujjar cewa tarin metadata ta wayar tarho ya ƙunshi mamaye sirri da bincike mara ma'ana da kamawa a ƙarƙashin Kwaskwarima na Hudu don masu biyan kuɗi na Verizon, kuma tattara bayanan na iya sanyaya faɗin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin gyare-gyaren farko idan mutane suka ƙi yin sadarwa saboda. ga tsoron sa idon gwamnati. [4]
Tarihin shari'a
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]Hukuncin Kotun Lardi na farko
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]An fara sauraren karar ne a Kotun Lardi na Amurka ta Kudancin New York . A ranar 28 ga Disamba, 2013, Alkali William Pauley ya yi watsi da korafin ACLU. Pauley ya yanke hukuncin cewa masu amfani da waya ba su da wani kyakkyawan fata na keɓantawa ga metadata na waya, don haka binciken gwamnati na waɗannan bayanan baya buƙatar garanti a ƙarƙashin Gyara na Hudu . [4] Wannan riƙewa ya dogara ne akan shari'ar Kotun Koli ta 1979 Smith v. Maryland, inda aka ƙaddara cewa mutanen da suka ba da bayanai ga kamfanonin sadarwa na ɓangare na uku ba za su iya tsammanin cewa bayanan na sirri ba ne. Pauley bai sami dalilin da yasa Smith v. Maryland ba, wanda ya kammala cewa metadata na waya yana waje da tsammanin sirri, ba zai shafi shirin NSA ba.
Pauley ya kuma lura cewa tattara bayanan yana samun goyon bayan hanyoyin cikin gida na NSA wanda aka ba da izini a ƙarƙashin dokokin da suka dace da tsaro kamar Dokar Patriot . A cewar Keith B. Alexander, Hukumar NSA ba ta yi wani bincike na tsari ko haƙar ma'adinan bayanai ta atomatik ba don fitar da ƙarin bayanan sirri daga kowane mai amfani da wayar ta metadata, amma ta buƙaci tattara waɗannan bayanan don gina ma'ajin bayanai wanda za a iya samun bayanan mutum ɗaya daga cikinsu. bincika musamman tare da garanti a nan gaba. [5] Kotun ta yi imanin cewa wannan dabara ita ce hanya mafi ƙarancin kutse kuma mafi dacewa ga manufofin NSA.
Pauley ya kuma gamsu da hujjar NSA cewa shirin tattara metadata ya zama dole don kare Amurka daga hare-haren ta'addanci, yana mai nuni da labaran nasara da aka ce sun yi kama da tantance Najibullah Zazi dangane da harin bam na jirgin karkashin kasa na birnin New York Khalid Ouazzani dangane da Sabon Makircin harin bam na kasuwar hannun jarin York, da David Headley dangane da harin bam da aka kai Mumbai da kuma makircin harin bam na jaridun Danish.
Pauley ya kammala da cewa duk da cewa abubuwan da ke damun sirrin da shirin sa ido ya gabatar ba "ba kadan ba ne," yuwuwar fa'idodin sa ido sun fi irin wannan la'akari. Don haka an gano shirin sa ido na NSA ya yi daidai da dokar Patriot. [4] Bi da bi, Pauley ya kauce wa la'akari na hudu gyara na korafin. [6]
ACLU ta daukaka karar wannan hukuncin zuwa kotun daukaka kara ta biyu . [1]
Hukuncin Kotun da'ira
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]A zagaye na biyu, ACLU ta yi jayayya:
"The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance. Further, as the president's own review panel recently observed, there's no evidence that this dragnet program was essential to preventing any terrorist attack. We categorically reject the notion that the threat of terrorism requires citizens of democratic countries to surrender the freedoms that make democracies worth defending."[7]
A ranar 7 ga Mayu, 2015, da'irar ta biyu ta gudanar da cewa "shirin metadata na wayar tarho ya wuce iyakar abin da Majalisa ta ba da izini don haka ya saba wa Sashe na 215 " na Dokar Patriot . [1] Alkali Gerard E. Lynch ya yanke hukuncin cewa "abin ban mamaki" adadin bayanan da NSA ta tattara ya saba wa Kwaskwari na Hudu da Dokar Patriot . Nan da nan wannan ya sa dabarun sa ido na NSA da yawa haramun ne. Sakamakon haka, hukuncin kotun gunduma ya fice kuma an umurci kotun da ta saurari duk wasu kararraki da suka shafi korafin ACLU. [1]
Abubuwan ci gaba na gaba
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]Jim kadan bayan hukuncin kotun da’ira, wanda ya sanya yawancin shirin sa ido kan metadata ta wayar NSA ba bisa ka’ida ba a karkashin tanade-tanaden Dokar Patriot, Majalisar Dokokin Amurka ta fayyace ma’auni na shirin a cikin Dokar ‘Yancin Amurka, wadda aka zartar a ranar 2 ga Yuni, 2015. Wannan doka ta maido da wasu dabarun satar waya ta lantarki kuma ta dawo da nau'ikan ikon NSA da yawa waɗanda ke aiki a baya.
A cewar ACLU, "bayan zartar da Dokar 'Yanci ta Amurka, gwamnati ta shigar da karar FISC [ Kotun Kula da Leken Asirin Harkokin Waje ] don ba da damar NSA ta sake farawa da shirin, tana jayayya cewa sabuwar dokar ta ba ta damar ci gaba da tarin tarin yawa a cikin kwanaki 180. lokacin mika mulki [8] ACLU ta bayar da hujjar cewa hukuncin da ya gabata bai ba da damar tattara bayanai ba a lokacin wannan lokacin mika mulki, amma a karshe Saki na Biyu ya ki amincewa da kudirin yin hakan, saboda ya bi ka’idojin sabuwar dokar ‘yancin walwala ta Amurka. [9]
Tasiri
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]Hukuncin farko a cikin Ƙungiyar 'Yancin Jama'a ta Amirka v. Clapper, wanda gundumar Kudancin New York ta yanke hukuncin cewa shirin sa ido kan metadata ta wayar NSA ya kasance na doka yayin da ba a yi amfani da hujjar tsarin mulki ba, kai tsaye ya ci karo da wani hukuncin Kotun Lardi na daban a Klayman v. wanda aka tattauna gyara na Hudu sosai . [10] Wannan ya haifar da rarrabuwar kawuna, wanda hakan ya haifar da rudani kan ko sa ido na NSA ya sabawa kundin tsarin mulkin kasar, tare da kiraye-kirayen yanke hukuncin kotun koli kan lamarin. [6]
Duk da yake hukuncin kotun da'ira daga baya a cikin shari'ar Clapper partially gyara rarrabuwa precedent, ya yi haka a kan tsari filaye da alaka da tanadi a cikin sabuwar-wuce Amurka 'Yanci Dokar, yayin da sake guje wa tattaunawa na rikici tsakanin wannan doka (da kuma wanda ya gabace ta Patriot. Dokar ) da Kwaskwarima na Hudu. [11] A sakamakon haka, masu sharhi da yawa sun lura cewa kotuna sun kauce wa yanke hukunci mai wahala kan ko tsarin sa ido na sadarwa na zamani yana da buƙatun Gyara na Hudu don bincike da kamawa da hanyoyin garanti masu alaƙa, [12] [13] ko kuma tsofaffin magabata kamar Smith v. Maryland. har yanzu sun kasance masu dacewa dangane da sabbin fasahohi. [14]
Duba kuma
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]- Shari'a kan sa ido a duniya
- Sa ido kan jama'a a Amurka
- Klayman v Obama
Manazarta
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F. 3d 787 (2nd. Cir., 2015).
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Greenwald, Glenn (6 June 2013). "NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily". The Guardian. Retrieved August 16, 2013.
- ↑ "13 CIV 3994" (PDF). United States District Court Southern District of New York via ACLU.org.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 959 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D.N.Y., 2013).
- ↑ "House Select Intelligence Committee Holds Hearing on Disclosure of National Security Agency Surveillance" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program. 18 June 2013. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Cramer, Benjamin W. (2018). "A Proposal to Adopt Data Discrimination Rather than Privacy as the Justification for Rolling Back Data Surveillance". Journal of Information Policy. 8: 5–33 – via JSTOR. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name ":0" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ "ACLU Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Call-Tracking Program | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. 2014-01-02. Retrieved 2014-02-02.
- ↑ "ACLU v. Clapper - Challenge to NSA Mass Call-Tracking Program". American Civil Liberties Union (in Turanci). Retrieved 2021-10-24.
- ↑ American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 804 F.3d 617 (2nd. Cir., 2015).
- ↑ Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.C.D.C., 2013).
- ↑ Connare, Erin E. (April 2015). "ACLU v. Clapper: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age". Buffalo Law Review. 63 (2): 395–419 – via HeinOnline.
- ↑ Robinson, David J.; Wykoff, Julia Kaye (Fall 2015). "NSA Metadata Collection & Storage: An Internment Camp for Citizens' Effects". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 40 (1): 29–44 – via HeinOnline.
- ↑ Graziano, Steven (Spring 2016). "An Unconstitutional Work of Art: Discussing Where the Federal Government's Discrete Intrusions into One's Privacy Become an Unconstitutional Search Through Mosaic Theory". Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology. 17 (2): 977–1012 – via HeinOnline.
- ↑ Rapisarda, Mark (2015). "Privacy, Technology, and Surveillance: NSA Bulk Collection and the End of the Smith v. Maryland Era". Gonzaga Law Review. 51 (1): 121–158 – via HeinOnline.