Recent court opinions on National Security Agency phone surveillance indicate that understandingrnof the Fourth Amendment may need to change, argued Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at thernStanford Center for Internet and Society. She pointed to two federal court decisions from December, onerncalling phone metadata bulk collection likely to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment and another upholdingrnthe practice. She favored the reasoning of the former and examined the broader legal context. “Arnconsensus seems to be emerging that the Fourth Amendment must evolve along with technology and governmentrnsurveillance capabilities, and that it is the job of the lower courts to investigate and to rule accordingly,”rnshe wrote in a Just Security blog post Tuesday (http://bit.ly/KmNnv5). “If lower courts slavishlyrnfollow the closest analogous Supreme Court case on hand, rather than seriously consider whether facts,rnpolicies and practices on the ground have changed, higher courts will not benefit from the best fact-findingrnand the best legal reasoning incubated in the lower federal courts.” She predicted courts will ultimatelyrnfind the Fourth Amendment prohibits such bulk surveillance, which she called an “unprecedented power”rnof the government.
展开▼
机译：斯坦福大学互联网与社会中心的公民自由主管詹妮弗·格兰尼克（Jennifer Granick）认为，最近法院对国家安全局电话监视的意见表明，对《第四修正案》的理解可能需要改变。她指出了自12月以来的两项联邦法院判决，呼吁对电话元数据进行批量收集可能违反了《第四修正案》，而另一项坚持这一做法的做法。她赞成前者的推理，并研究了更广泛的法律背景。 “ Arnconsensus似乎正在出现，第四修正案必须随着技术和政府监视能力的发展而发展，这是下级法院的工作，以进行相应的调查和裁决，” rnshe在周二的《 Just Security》博客文章（http：// /bit.ly/KmNnv5）。 “如果下级法院紧随其后，与最高法院类似，而不是认真考虑当地的事实，政策和做法是否已发生变化，那么上级法院将无法从下级联邦中的最佳事实调查和最佳法律推理中受益。法院。”她预测，法院最终将确定《第四修正案》禁止这种大规模监视，她称这是政府的“前所未有的权力”。
展开▼
