An anonymous reader writes with news of problems a man caught by the NSA dragnet for donating a small sum of money to an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature is having mounting an appeal. From the article: “Seven months after his conviction, Basaaly Moalin’s defense attorney moved for a new trial, arguing that evidence collected about him under the government’s recently disclosed dragnet telephone surveillance program violated his constitutional and statutory rights. … The government’s response (PDF), filed on September 30th, is a heavily redacted opposition arguing that when law enforcement can monitor one person’s information without a warrant, it can monitor everyone’s information, ‘regardless of the collection’s expanse.’ Notably, the government is also arguing that no one other than the company that provided the information — including the defendant in this case — has the right to challenge this disclosure in court.” This goes far beyond the third party doctrine, effectively prosecuting someone and depriving them of the ability to defend themselves by declaring that they have no standing to refute the evidence used against them…. An anonymous reader writes with news of problems a man caught by the NSA dragnet for donating a small sum of money to an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature is having mounting an appeal. From the article: “Seven months after his conviction, Basaaly Moalin’s defense attorney moved for a new trial, arguing that evidence collected about him under the government’s recently disclosed dragnet telephone surveillance program violated his constitutional and statutory rights. … The government’s response (PDF), filed on September 30th, is a heavily redacted opposition arguing that when law enforcement can monitor one person’s information without a warrant, it can monitor everyone’s information, ‘regardless of the collection’s expanse.’ Notably, the government is also arguing that no one other than the company that provided the information — including the defendant in this case — has the right to challenge this disclosure in court.” This goes far beyond the third party doctrine, effectively prosecuting someone and depriving them of the ability to defend themselves by declaring that they have no standing to refute the evidence used against them.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read more http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/oCoTre6iHcs/story01.htm