Standing and state secrets win again

And because a federal judge has ruled on these two key points, the NSA has won another round in its never ending battle to listen in on every living creature on the face of the earth.

A U.S. judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of the National Security Agency in a lawsuit challenging the interception of Internet communications without a warrant, according to a court filing.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland said the plaintiffs in the case -- AT&T customers -- had not shown that all AT&T customers' Internet communications were currently the subject of a "dragnet seizure and search program, controlled by or at the direction of the Government," and they therefore did not have standing to file a lawsuit under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against warrantless searches and seizures.

White said the plaintiffs' understanding of the key parts of the data collection process was "substantially inaccurate."

Additionally, even if the plaintiffs had standing, White said a Fourth Amendment claim would have to be dismissed to protect secret information that would damage national security if released. He granted partial summary judgment for the government.

"The Court is frustrated by the prospect of deciding the current motions without full public disclosure of the Court's analysis and reasoning ... ," White wrote in his ruling. "The Court is persuaded that its decision is correct both legally and factually and furthermore is required by the interests of national security."

The ruling is the latest in litigation over the government's ability to monitor Internet traffic, and how it balances national security priorities against privacy. NSA surveillance programs have provoked worldwide controversy since they were disclosed by former NSA systems administrator Edward Snowden.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said that the judge's ruling did not end part of the case concerning telephone record collection and other mass surveillance.

The ruling is a perfect Catch-22. You can not sue if you don't have standing. You can not prove you have standing because that information is a state secret, therefore you do not have standing. Beautiful.