Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues AT&T Over NSA Wiretapping
Omega1045 writes "Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency execute illegal warrant-less wiretaps against American citizens.
From the article: 'The lawsuits alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members.'"
Uh, no. Congress did not grant this power explicitly. Congress allowed military action. And from what I've heard, they are spinning this to mean that domestic wiretaps are okay. Here's the problem:
They already have the power to do these things without a warrant so long as they go back and get the warrant within 72 hours. This gives them the ability to act on a lead immediately without the hassle of waiting on a judge. They don't want to do even THAT much -- they want whatever they are doing to be SECRET and to be UNACCOUNTABLE for it. Ultimately, I believe we will find that it is going well beyond communications where one side is 'al qaeda' and the other side is in the U.S. I think if we get to see what they are REALLY doing, we'll find investigations against anti-war and anti-Bush organizations and their members.
How about directly linking to the article, rather than bouncing through a portal full of ads?
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
Seems like BoingBoing.com is trolling for hits with several recent articles. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd wish the Slashdot editors to prefer primary content to secondary sources being framed within ad bars on all sides....
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
The problem is that to determine if there is probable cause for arrest, they're intruding on the privacy of everyone else by searching through databases containing innocent phone conversations and private information. They did not have probable cause to search through this other information. That is where the main issue lies; the privacy and security of everyone is being compromised to seek out the few that have done something wrong.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The president was granted this power by congress and congress knew all along about it.
.Guess who?
k /print/1/displaymode/1098/
Nonsense. Congress knew nothing about it. The wiretaps were "authorized" by the Office of Legal Council, an arm of the Justice Department full of appointed judges, appointed by. .
Nor was there a lot of agreement within the OLC about the legality of the wiretaps:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newswee
These are the same people who said that just because we signed the Geneva Convention doesn't mean we're bound by it, but can still bitch about anyone else not obeying it, because it's the law.
I've not seen that anywhere.
Really?
http://www.rense.com/general69/legit.htm
Well, now you have.
KFG
Jeez, a couple weeks of Doublespeak ("terrorist surviellance program") and a whole bunch of people forget what the hubbub is all about.
+&x
No. It comes down to an expectation of privacy.
The "in plain sight" rule is what you are talking about. If a crime or items related to a crime are in plain sight, there's no need for a warrant (or a search for that matter). That has nothing to do with probable cause.
Probable cause is why you can be stopped by the police... if they don't have it, they are either guessing (bad) or harassing you (bad). What is needed for a warrant is a judge... the judge will review the application and see if there is probable cause.
The problem with wiretaps is that they always require a warrant (under FISA, it can be a secret warrant, even approved after the fact) unless it is against someone outside of the US, or withing 15 days of the beginning of a declared war.
Neither of those thresholds were met.
There were no warrants, no intentions to get warrants, and the government has admitted they don't even know who all the people were which were surveiled, so it is impossible they had a reasonable cause to suspect them all.
In other words, it was illegal, on the face of it, but because it was approved by the President and implemented in secret, there was no chance for review.
So now that people know, they can sue those companies which participated in it without the proper warrants.
This arguement is common and dangerous. Not only do unlimited wiretaps destroy our privacy they destroy our anonymity. Free speech means I can communicate over any medium and say anything I want. Including criticism of the current government. In the private sphere of my house I cannot be prosecuted for ANYTHING I say. But these days, the Patriot Act and other dubious pieces of legislation allow the government to hold me without cause, brand me a terrorist and destroy my life. AT&T is now making that even easier, I'm not sure the best way of protecting your people and a way of life lies in destroying that which makes it free. I'm sure the American Revolution would never have happened if gov't had known about it.
All your database are belong to us
This is a class-action lawsuit, on behalf of all AT&T customers in the US, not just the EFF. So it doesn't matter whether EFF's traffic was tapped or not.
That's 8,796,093,022,208 bit X 300 OR 1,024 Gigabyte X 300 OR if you prefer 1,048,576 Megabyte X 300.
That's 307,200 Gigabytes(GIGS). I think they either don't know how to optimise their data or they have a hell of it.
Congress did not declare war, and last I checked, Al Qaeda is not a nation.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
The Constitution does allow for warrantless searches.
The Fourth Amendment has two clauses - 1. no unreasonable search and seizures, and 2. the warrant clause. Not all searches and seizures require a warrant. For example, searches incident to arrest, "open container" vehicle searches, and (importantly for this discussion) foreign intelligence signals intelligence.
What's more, not all searches and seizures are forbidden, only those that are unreasonable. The interception of the communications of known foreign enemies of the US is per se reasonable.
What do you call a person within the boarders of a country, not a citizen of the country, during the time of war, without any sort of uniform, receiving communication from the enemy? This is the type of person that 150 years ago would not be arrested by the police, and not tried by citizen courts. If you look at things this way, it is very easy to see why the administration went to Congress and informed them on what they were doing, and nothing was done. It would also explain why the administration believes they are doing the right thing, within the law.
Like what you see? Want to see more of it? You can. Join EFF.
I'm often critical of the way politics works in the US but this is one valuable thing you Yanks do have over us Brits - the ability to sue the government. In the UK we have something called "Crown Immunity" which basically means a British subject can't sue an institution run by the "Crown" i.e. the UK government (IANAL though). It's a real pisser being a "subject" sometimes. Though it hardly needs to be said there are plenty of republics where "citizens" are treated rather worse.
Actually, you are right. Bush didn't do the spying. He authorized the NSA to do it for him.
"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
-- G. W. Bush, Radio Address, Dec 2005
Now lets look at that Constituion, shall we?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-- Former 4th amendment to the US Constitution (now obsolete)
Oh, and I should point out that "the people" has been interpreted not just to mean US citizens. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-4 ('82).
It's likely the people suing would be required to show that they have been directly harmed.
The EFF found a few subscribers of AT&T to allege violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights, and have asked every similarly-situated subscriber to be joined to make it a class-action suit. The EFF is not in fact suing the government itself, the named plaintiffs (and potentially the millions of unnamed members of the class) are. The EFF is just providing the lawyers.
The standard would likely be lower for suing AT&T, which could be as simple as breach of a privacy contract.
No, AT&T is obligated to give up information on their subscribers in response to any lawful government order, private privacy agreements notwithstanding. That's why they can comply with ordinary secret wiretap orders without telling you, and you can't sue them for breach of contract.
The complaint alleges, first, that AT&T acting as an agent of the government violated the plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment rights by not securing a warrant for a wiretap and mining AT&T's "Daytona" database. Obviously, the Court could not find for the plaintiffs without finding that the President has no constitutional or statutory authority to order wiretaps of this nature without a warrant. Additionally, it would need to find that AT&T was acting as the government's agent, and not merely complying with an order it thought, or had good reason to think, was legal.
This is a tall order, especially with regard to finding AT&T an agent of the government. I suspect it's the equivalent of the following: you work at the DMV, and a policeman comes in, shows you his badge, and asks you to run the plates of a certain car and tell you the owner's address, because he's investigating a certain crime. He's asked you to do this many times before, you know for a fact he works for the PD, and you know for a fact the crime he mentions exists, because you saw it on the news. But -- alas -- it turns out the cop was not acting officially. He was merely sneakily finding out where his ex-girlfriend was living. So the ex-GF sues you for violating her Fourth Amendment rights. Is the Court going to back her up? Mmm, sounds unlikely. Sounds like you were just doing your job and responded to what any reasonable person would think was a legal order from law enforcement. The ex-GF has a case against the cop, sure. But not against you. Similarly, I 'spect a Federal judge is going to tell the EFF the plaintiffs might have a case against the United States, but not against AT&T.
The complaint alleges, second, that AT&T violated FISA because they knew, or should have known, that the government order to wiretap without a FISA warrant was illegal, notwithstanding that it was signed by the Attorney General of the United States or his representative. Um, sure. Good luck with that one, boys.
The remaining counts are a couple of Hail Marys alleging violation of the usual wiretap laws -- which relies on AT&T's defense that it was obeying a legal (or apparently legal or legal at the time) order not holding up -- and for violating California's business code because AT&T deceived subscribers into thinking their communications would not be monitored illegally by the NSA.
I would be shocked if the EFF expects to prevail on this at any level, except maybe barely possibly at the trial court level if they do get venue in San Francisco and can seat a load of ACT-UP activists on the jury. But, mmmm, any way it turns out, it's very good publicity. Look how long this comment thread is...
AT&T also have the right to inspect any package (in this case conversation) passing through it's network that it suspects of breaking the law?
No. The Telecommunications Privacy Act (TCPA) specifically prevents common carriers and local exchange carriers from this activity.
And, technically, the rank-and-file employees of the USPS don't have that ability either. Only Postal Inspectors, who are fully deputized federal law enforcement officers, have that ability.