Jeffrey Vagle, writing in Just Security, says that a recent decision from U.S. District Lucy Koh could strengthen the positions of plaintiffs seeking standing to challenge government surveillance. Courts have consistently ruled that plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge government surveillance, he notes, even though "research has long shown that even the mere awareness of government surveillance, under which an individual could reasonably expect herself to be observed, can yield very real chilling effect injuries, including self-censorship and an increased reluctance to associate with certain people or groups. Foucault would, of course, argue that this is the entire point of surveillance."
Koh ruled in a case involving a data breach at Adobe that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims because they need only show a "'substantial risk that the harm will occur, which may prompt plaintiffs to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid that harm.'" The reasoning in Koh's decision "may be a sign that future surveillance harms will soon be recognized as an 'injury in fact,'" making it easier for plaintiffs to assert standing and keep pursuing their cases in court, Vagle said.
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
