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.'"
This will definitely be an interesting story to follow. This will put companies on the defensive for complying with any illegal acts by the government. Some say you can't sue the government, but you sure as hell can sue the people who comply with illegal acts. Why didn't I think about that angle? I just assumed they tapped the communications in some way that circumvented the companies...
It's a valid assertion. "I was just following orders," has long been regarded as no defense. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
It's kind of sad. I once had a Biz Law class and when the prof (JD) asked the class if the folks who are arrested for "terrorism" deserve due process, the only people who raised their hands were the Naturalized citizens and me - born 'N raised AMerican - Fuck Yeah! The prof asked the few who raised their hands what their background was - that's how we knew they were naturalized. Sad.
When the result is a loss, yes it does. It sets legal precedent which will be cited in future cases.
Amendment IV
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.
Nowhere within the delegated powers does it say the president can violate
the 4th amendment. There is zippo, zero, nada authority to do so.
If we go with your rationalization, we are in a war with no clear enemy, no clear objective, no clear ending. This means we are effectively in a perpetual war. It also means that every president is effectively above the law until the war ends. As much as I detest Hilary Clinton, I hope to god she becomes president just to watch all the neo-cons squirm as she abuses the powers they have given bush.
Even if we assume that this :
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" is his justification, guess what?
Congress HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to give the president the power to suspend the 4th amendment.
The only way either Congress or Bush can do so is to amend the constitution to allow it.
Regarding your last point :
"I want the President taking the necessary step of surveiling our active stated enemies in order to have a shot at preventing the nutcases from taking another 9/11-esque shot at me and mine. I don't see how it can be any other way, given the state of the world."
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. I bet you that Americans would react violently if the chinese had replaced our government with a new one (after they supervised the elections). Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You know, I agree with this up to the point that there was an already existing method for obtaining authorization *after the fact*. By neglecting to take that step, it has offended even people like me who believe in executive power during times of crisis.
The existing methods were put in place to create a paper trail of what was being done, and it is clear that paper trail was an unwanted nuisance. *That* is what ticks me off, not that they follow up on leads. Nothing in the law would have prevented those wiretaps and there would be little heat if the president would simply follow established, auditable procedures.
The suit likewise is going after the idea that AT&T opened the networks up far beyond the requirements (and potentially legal bounds) of a normal, legal wiretap. I have no idea if they did or didn't do that.
Sig under construction since 1998.
This is pure genius because it utilizes such a simple, basic concept: accountability.
Every group or individual has an ethical responsibility to do no harm to others. If someone asks you to do something harmful to someone, and you choose to carry out their request, you are responsible, period.
Bravo to the EFF for this creative, yet totally legitimate, approach.
As a Microsoft employee, I already donate to the EFF year-round through the company's charitable giving campaign (and the part that really tickles me is that Microsoft matches whatever amount an employee contributes to any organization, so I'm getting Microsoft to help fund the EFF), but I may very well increase my donation amount during the next cycle. The EFF keeps fighting for the right positions when no one else is there to stand up and fight for them.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
By definition, if they are important, then they've got probable cause. Else how do they know they are important?
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego,
And what a colossal fuckup it would be if the information to stop 9/11 was already recorded by agents in the field, reported and filed on FBI computers but nobody noticed?
Oh yeah, it was.
You demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about how security works. It is impossible to follow up on every diddly little lead. There are not enough resources to cover everything. So you prioritize and work the leads with the highest probability of yielding results. To do otherwise is to ignore the obviously good leads in favor of chasing your tail. The leads that have high-probability of yielding results are, by definition, those for which there is probable cause.
You advocate ignoring good security principles in favor of something akin to throwing darts.
In which case you have roughly no security at all.
Okay, so the EFF sues AT&T for letting them do the wiretapping. Lets just say they win. Do you really think they will stop tapping the phones? Instead the NSA has to move the wiretapping from easy (ie, AT&T handing them the keys) to a bit more covert (ie, splicing in somewhere remote) which will cost tons more to the taxpayer than the original plan.
I am sure they already do plenty of covert splices as it is now. When I was working for a major internet backbone provider a few years back, I always found it interesting that in the office right below where we did all the long haul network designs was an office for the Dept. of Defense. Anytime we were walking through the halls and one of their employees were punching in the code to gain entry, they'd "accidentally" punch in the wrong code. I did some research, but couldnt find any info on what was done in that office... So, by no real logic, that means it had to be the NSA and they were intercepting all of our network designs so that they could find a repeater in the middle of no where to attach their monitoring equipment. Its only logical...
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?
A dangerous criminal. We have laws for dealing with them. These laws were created specifically to put checks and balances in place to ensure freedom and democracy stay alive. These laws ban the kind of things you see in dictatorships like indefinite imprisonment without charges, spying on citizens who oppose the government, torture of prisoners, and secret trials where the defendant is not allowed to have access to lawyers or to see and challenge all the evidence presented against them. These are all things that this administration has claimed the power to do (oh, but only against the bad guys, of course).
This is the type of person that 150 years ago would not be arrested by the police, and not tried by citizen courts.
Please justify this statement with historical examples.
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.
He only informed a very select few members of Congress, and we don't know how much he told them nor whether or not what he told them is true. After all, he's acted to prevent oversight that would allow fact checking. We do know however that he's presented tainted evidence to Congress before, and look where that got us. We also know that he's lied about wiretaps before.
--George W. Bush, during a 2004 campaign speech
Honestly, how can you trust this man anymore? There are no legitimate reasons to evade FISA. The only other reasons are to spy on people who shouldn't be spied on or to go on a fishing expedition through a wide sea of innocent people in the hopes of grabbing someone guilty. These are the acts of man who has no respect for rule of law.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").