AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs

UltimaGuy writes to mention a Wired article about some AT&T documents that have gone off the farm. An ex-employee provided some information to the EFF, to assist in their wiretapping case against the company. Ma Bell is now arguing the files are confidential, and shouldn't be used in a court case. From the article: "The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms exist in other AT&T switching centers."

Comments

no fourth amendment protections here.

[taumeson]

If a civilian has the docs, they can go after him, but there's no fourth amendment protections here. It'd take somebody in the administration classifying them to make them officially restricted.

Just cause AT&T doesn't want them out there doesn't mean squat.

Doesn't help fight terrorism

[elrous0]

The problem is that stuff like this DOES NOT help fight terrorism, as the NSA would content. It just makes it even harder to find the important intelligence, because it's drowned out by all the noise.

-Eric

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that stuff like this DOES NOT help fight terrorism, as the NSA would content. It just makes it even harder to find the important intelligence, because it's drowned out by all the noise.

First, this does help fight terrorism iff ALL traffic goes through it, and the terrorist uses it.

Now, with that said, what makes you think that this limited to ATT? Because people on /. have not seen it? because EFF has not found all the evidence?

Next what is making people think that Al Qaeda, who received CIA training (thanks to reagan) to survive, does not know that they will be monitored and is actively not on the wire?

The problem is that this system is targeted at terrorism, but with the patriot act, it allows all this power to actively be used against americans. Worse, we have now seen that the white house consists of cowards, liars, and traitors. There is no doubt that they are using this system for their personal use. If nothing else, do you remember the East Coast Democrat mayor who was being tracked? There is a LOT of circumstanstial evidence of the feds using all this against Americans. By itself, no big deal. By taken as a whole, and it should be apparent that we are not the land of the free, but we are recruiting the USSR but with capitalism thrown in.

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

[meringuoid]

The problem is that stuff like this DOES NOT help fight terrorism, as the NSA would content.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that they're spying on their own people as a matter of course, eavesdropping on our communications, reading our mail.

Whether or not it helps fight terrorism is irrelevant. Even if it could prevent another September 11th, it would still be unacceptable.

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

[BVis]

Kind of OT, feel free to moderate as such:

This reminds me of an argument I had with someone a couple months ago regarding the importance of privacy vs. the importance of preventing terrorism. I argued that if we give up our privacy, sure, MAYBE they could gather enough intelligence and interpret it correctly to avoid another 9/11 - scale attack. (That's a BIG maybe. Personally I don't trust a government agency to tell me the sky is blue.) However, this doesn't protect American citizens.

That might not make sense until you take the position that once we give up those rights (which were so important to the Founding Fathers that they put them in the first few amendments to the constitution; I'm thinking first and fourth are most relevant) we are no longer American citizens. We're people who happen to live in the same country.

It's not worth giving up our national identity or constitutional rights/ideals for an indeterminate amount of increased security. The person I was arguing with said that if it saves just one life it's worth it; I said one life is not worth the subjugation of 300 million. It's not even close.

So then he trotted out the old "if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about" chestnut. I'm sorry, I don't want the US government to know who I talk to, who I associate with, what religon I observe, what newspapers I read, and what factors I consider when deciding when to take legal action. (Bonus points if you recognize what those five things have in common.) It's just not any of their business! Plus, it starts to have a chilling effect on what topics are "acceptable" to discuss and which ones make you an "enemy of the state". The temptation to abuse that information is just too great, and I don't trust an elected official to make that decision objectively. What one person considers treason (clearly illegal) another considers civil disobedience (legal so long as no other illegal acts are committed, protected by the Constitution.)

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

[rossifer]

Uh-huh.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Some Saudi author found some bestiality porn on the intarweb and determined that because a woman was having sex with a dog/donkey, she must have already been married to the dog/donkey because that's the only way to have sex. Dammit! He's got us. With that kind of trailblazing fact-finding, there's just no way to hide the fact that all western women are married to dogs or donkeys!

If you really want to pop his cork, send him some two on one bestiality porn. Ask if she's married to both critters.

The Islamic world has basically zero chance of economic significance (outside of the sale of resources like oil) because they forbid loans with interest, because they marginalize half of their population out of the economy, and ultimately: because quranic law is essentially anti-commerce.

Sure, they'll have a substantial population for as long as the resources last (and food aid after that), and there will be some casualties here and there, when some of those upset with the imbalance (of their own making) head off to kill some infidels. However, to be completely realistic, India and China are much larger long-term threats to US hegemony than the whole of the Muslim world.

Regards,
Ross

So what?

[Billosaur]

AT&T is seeking the return of technical documents presented in a lawsuit that allegedly detail how the telecom giant helped the government set up a massive internet wiretap operation in its San Francisco facilities.

In papers filed late Monday, AT&T argued that confidential technical documents provided by an ex-AT&T technician to the Electronic Frontier Foundation shouldn't be used as evidence in the case and should be returned.

Big whoop. Copy the documents and hand them back to AT&T. What's the problem? Now that the genie is out of the secret room, so to speak, how does AT&T think this is going to help? They've just received a pretty severe black eye, though most of the public really doesn't know the details, despite the publicity. If I were AT&T, I'd maintain a low profile -- raising a fuss only makes more people get interested in what's in the documents.

Echelon

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Echelon. I'm surprised no one has mentioned so far.

More info, for those who has never heard of it before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Re:This proves it, of course.

[tweakt]

In other words, AT&T has just admitted that they are spying on you.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

Defending your privacy has nothing to do with admitting guilt. Do you think there could possibly be trade secrets in those documents somehow unrelated to the charges against AT&T?

A good example here might be a court trying to admit as evidence your complete credit card purchase history in an attempt to prove acts of terrorism. Even if there was *nothing* in there linking you to terrorism, you might seriously object to the disclosure of it, would you not? And I just love double standard concept of law... Should have two versions of the law, one where corporations are Guilty until proven innocent?

I'd love to see them nailed against the wall as much as the next guy, but let's not become hypocrits in the process, ok? AT&T has the right to contest public disclosure of internal documents as much as you do.

Re:This proves it, of course.

[iminplaya]

And I just love double standard concept of law... Should have two versions of the law, one where corporations are Guilty until proven innocent?

Not double standard, but a higher standard. We must hold those that we put into a position of power to a higher standard. I believe those who write and enforce the law(or have undue influence) should pay a much higher price if they break it. Then they might be more careful about the laws they write. We must remind them that their jobs exist to serve us.

Not quite...

[TheNoxx]

If an employee knows that his company is committing an illegal act, then it is his or her prerogative to alert the public and the judicial system; this is what is known as the "whistleblower" status. Whether or not the documents involved are confidential has absolutely no bearing.

The only shady part is whether or not the Patriot Act or other rights-inhibiting measures can cover AT&T's ass, or the asses of the agencies involved. If the Patriot Act had not been passed, believe me, AT&T would be in a world of shit.