This ban has got to be challenged in the Supreme Court for various reasons, not limited to the First Amendment and technological infeasibility.

It is quite the coincidence that the NSA has their datacenter in Utah.

▲

convolvatron 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I assure you that the NSA has its own substantial backhaul infrastructure, so local policies don't really affect its operations in any way. I think Utah is just very politically receptive to the idea that citizens communications should be monitored. I guess sure, the NSA likes that position in general, but it doesn't really have anything to do with where they store the bits.

	▲	gosub100 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's because the mormons are squeaky clean and can be trusted to deal with state secrets. Intel agencies love them for this.

▲

jmclnx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The current Supreme Court ?? I really doubt it will say these laws are illegal. They believe in "originalism", that means since the Internet did not exist in 1783, you have no rights to it and can be controlled in any manner the state of site owner sees fit.

	▲	tastyfreeze 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That is not what "originalism" in regards to Constitutional interpretation means. An originalist will attempt to determine how a modern thing like the Internet would fit in to the original purpose of relevant parts of the Constitution. Something as broad as the "the Internet" falls into multiple areas. In regards to this story of the relevant area in the Constitution are the 1st and 4th amendments. When the Bill of Rights was passed the purpose of those amendments was to restrict government action that may limit a person's ability to share ideas. I think that clearly makes anything that makes privacy online harder unconstitutional. But, we also don't need the Supreme Court to weigh in on constitutionality. It is the responsibility of citizens to assert their Constitutional rights. That often looks like law suits against the State trying to infringe on our rights.