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
Jeez, a couple weeks of Doublespeak ("terrorist surviellance program") and a whole bunch of people forget what the hubbub is all about.
+&x
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
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.
Like what you see? Want to see more of it? You can. Join EFF.
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...