Slashdot Mirror
Secret Court: Government Lied to Get Wiretaps Approved
Paersona writes "Ever wonder what Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is doing to pass the time while she waits for the next step in the Microsoft case? Apparently she is now serving as the lead justice of the FISA court that oversees intelligence agencies' requests for domestic wiretapping. Today, the Washington Post reveals that the FISA court has released a rare public report rebuking the FBI and Justice Department for their handling of wiretap requests." The New York Times also has a story about the FISA court. The court's opinion is available.
This is a good sign that Kotar-Kotelly isn't afraid to take on the current powers that be. Many people, even ones with good track records, have taken up a don't-rock-the-boat attitude since you know when. It's good to see that it hasn't hit K-K. If she's willing to stand up to the PATRIOT-enabled FBI, it bodes well for her honesty in the Microsoft case.
This woman seems to wield a lot of power over both individual citizens and major corporations. I would like to know more about her.
...and you people have the gall to be discussing the FISA court rebuking the FBI and Justice Department???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
While I agree with you that a load of shit is going on around the world (and always has been): it's imperative that you clean things up in your own house, regardless of what the neighborhood looks like. If you want to stand for civil rights and liberties, for justice and equal opportunities and oppose the idea police/military regimes you have to follow your own ideals. Otherwise they are worthless and "The Free World" becomes another meaningless term used for propaganda, political power struggles and disposal of the opposition (as it probably is right now, anyway). If you don't pay attention to our society's very foundation then our course is meaningless. And protection from arbitrary, unchecked wiretap is part of this foundation, we call it privacy. And no, privacy is not for terrorists only.
"Speech". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> Sure, it's not a right to destroy government property, but it's vandalism, not terrorism.
Destroying government property for no reason at all is vandalism.
Destroying government property (or most other uses of violence / force by non-uniformed combatants) in order to change policy is the definition of terrorism.
Granted, a rock's nowhere near as lethal as a bomb, but that's a matter of degree, not a matter of principle - by throwing that rock, you're saying to the drones in the building that if they continue to work for the institution against which you're protesting, they put their personal safety at risk. If throwing rocks through government office windows in order to change policy isn't terrorism, why not step up to Molotovs? Little chunks of lead? Where do you draw the line?
You have the right to peacably assemble and protest. You have the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances.
Where I come from, speech comes in many forms. Sound waves. T-shirts. Handbills. Source code. Executable code. But "igneous", "metamorphic", or "sedimentary" aren't on the list.
Likewise, "stuffed into a bottle of flammable liquid and lit on fire" doesn't constitute a Constitutionally-protected way to deliver a petition.