# Kafka was weak tea. Has been superseded. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 30, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453 "2013-12-30T02:54:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/1 "2013-12-30T02:54:38Z")
From [here](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/ny-district-judge-rules-that-nsa-phone-surveillance-is-legal/). It is ironic that the judge’s argument about what he calls an “absurdity” is much more absurd: Regarding the statutory arguments, there is another level of absurdity in this case. The ACLU would never have learned about the section 215 order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for the unauthorized disclosures by Edward Snowden. Congress did not intend that targets of section 215 orders would ever learn of them. And the statutory scheme also makes clear that Congress intended to preclude suits by targets even if they discovered section 215 orders implicating them. It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets—including the means and methods of intelligence gathering—could frustrate Congress’s intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief: recipients of orders would be subject to section 215’s secrecy protocol confining challenges to the FISC, while targets could sue in any federal district court. A target’s awareness of section 215 orders does not alter the Congressional calculus. The ACLU’s statutory claim must therefore be dismissed. In short: the one being spied on is not allowed to sue, because he was not supposed to know that he was spied on. Even if he finds out he was spied on. ---
**Author:** ![Recusant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@Recusant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recusant)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/2 "2013-12-30T04:32:25Z")
Now I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t “Congress intended to preclude suits by targets even if they discovered section 215 orders” mean that Congress (in this judge’s opinion) set up the laws so that even if you did find out about them, you couldn’t so? Isn’t allowing no legal recourse against a law perceived as unjust is less “absurdity” and more “treason”? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/3 "2013-12-30T04:39:23Z")
“Treason” is certainly the wrong word. It seems like an exercise of sovereign immunity. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/4 "2013-12-30T06:26:55Z")
Well fine, I guess I’ll just have to sue them for being negligent in allowing me to find out about that thing I’m not allowed to sue them for. ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/5 "2013-12-30T15:24:33Z")
No more spawning mischief, get off my lawn! ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/6 "2013-12-30T16:47:11Z")
I am not sure about it superseding Kafka, but I agree that it is not justice, and the judge’s “logic” seems tortured. As we now seem to have conflicting judgements, the issue seems bound to go to higher courts, and very likely all the way to the Supremes. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/7 "2013-12-30T16:53:03Z")
But that statement starts with “Regarding the statutory arguments,” and it comes right after the court said that the ACLU’s constitutional claims weren’t barred. “Not allowed to sue” sounds a whole hell of a lot different than “can only sue on constitutional grounds.” ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/8 "2013-12-30T17:01:10Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > I am not sure about it superseding Kafka, but I agree that it is not justice, and the judge’s “logic” seems tortured. As we now seem to have conflicting judgements, the issue seems bound to go to higher courts, and very likely all the way to the Supremes. Seconded. Ordinary individuals are at the mercy of a merciless and arbitrary social mechanism in Kafka. Typical of any modern state regardless of the political system. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kafka-was-weak-tea-has-been-superseded/677453/9 "2014-01-01T05:08:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In short: the one being spied on is not allowed to sue, because he was not supposed to know that he was spied on. Even if he finds out he was spied on. Well its a natural part of the law that if the law says a public servant shall do X, its to be assumed that there is no compensation for doing X. But If the law says " a public servant shall do X and pay compensation for it", then there is compensation. He is also saying that if there is “and keep it secret” in the law, then there wouldn’t be “and pay compensation upon doing it”. Its one or the other.