Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Government Moves To Dismiss EFF Case
iny0urbrain writes "The New York Times reports that the US government has asked a federal judge to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's civil liberties lawsuit against the AT&T Corporation because 'of a possibility that military and state secrets would otherwise be disclosed.' The statement concludes by saying: 'Finally, because the United States intends to assert the state secrets privilege and file a dispositive motion to dismiss this action, the United States requests that discovery proceedings be deferred until the government's submission has been considered and heard.' You can view the full text of the government's statement of interest (PDF) on the EFF's website." Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet this morning, and double posted this one. Sadly, the first one is a mere two stories down. It's also still pouring into the submissions bin, so I'm not the only one not yet awake.
And the original is only two stories below this one...
Different sections of slashdot have different color schemes. YRO articles are red.
Oops, not red anymore ... I guess I experienced a glitch in the Matrix.
I honestly believe we are highly hipocritical on this subject. We all watch movies like True Lies where the one guy asks, "get me a wiretap on ...", the other goes "Are you crazy? Thats illegal!!" and he responds by saying "And we do it 20 times a day! Now do it!". We watch 24 where the guy does everything in his power to get the information he wants. Then we find out, "Oh Me Oh My! The NSA really DOES spy! I'm Outraged!". We should honestly pick a position. We should stop glamorizing clandestine observation and instead demonize it, or we should accept the fact that there are some things we just don't want to know about in the intelligence world.
I do security
How many cases against the government is the EFF running at the moment, and why is the government using the same "national security" excuse for all of them? On the other hand, I guess the "national security" excuse has worked pretty damn well in the past. It worked for billions of dollars spent on a war...
... that 'ol Uncle Sam would do this? I'm not sure if this will be effective or not, since the whole operation (probably, I'm no expert) violates a whole lot of privacy laws. Even considering national security issues, it's a stretch.
I meant that the front-page header for the article was bright red, as opposed to green like everything else. I think I just loaded the page at the exact time it was posted and I guess I got the subscriber pre-release color, or something. I thought /. was trying to bring extra emphasis to this particular article.
The security of the Motherland outweighs any and all privacy concerns.
--Brought to you by the Republican Proletariat.
What a load of rubbish.
Either you're trolling, or you have great difficulty distinguishing between reality and entertainment. Just because something is entertaining does not mean that it is something that is agreed with. These are two completely separate things.
How would you react to the fact that some people watch V for Vendetta, 24, 1984, and True Lies? Would your head explode?
didn't nixon claim that the watergate incidents must not be investigated because it was an issue of national security?
where is our deepthroat today, is no one left in government uncorrupted?
-- lol pwned
I think it's oddly coincidental that, even after everything that's happened, Bush's approval rating still is around...
...30%.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
EFF had asked a Federal Judge to order AT&T to cease and desist their co-operation with the DoJ because 'of a possibility that personal and corporate secrets would otherwise be disclosed.'
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Normally, I'd quickly join the collective groan upon seeing a story duped, but this is one of those rare cases where it actually comes in handy and adds one more voice trying to get the American public to PAY SOME FUCKING ATTENTION.
:)
Now, if only the NY Times would dupe stories like this.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Ok, so I realize that as a litigant, the EFF will have the position that the NSA wiretap program IS illegel, this is shaky on right from the start.
First, the President has rights and responsibilities under Article 2 that gives him broad powers in times of conflict and war. The NSA wiretap (as in the press) is on communications between suspected terrorists/affiliates OVERSEAS and someone in the US. This type survellance was common in WWII and used extensively.
Second, it could very well be that the FISA law itself is the unconstitutional component here. Just because a weak president (Carter) signs FISA in 1978 on the heels of Watergate doesn't mean the a) it is Constitutional and b) that a future president can't take that power back.
Third, although there is no privacy provision in the Constitution (although implied by the fourth ammendmant - search and seizure) even if we are to stipulate one, the affected parties would need to have an expectation of privacy. As the targets of the program are terrorist or their affiliates, no reasonable person could argue that an enemy combatant, using domestic communications of the enemy they wish to harm, would expect that no one would listen. This may be a benefit of a U.S. citizen, but not the enemy.
Why isn't anyone connecting the dots? This is no time for partisan pleasantries. Americans are in the midst of the biggest gov/corp conspiracy to undermine civil rights, control communications and profiteering scheme in history. START PROTESTING ALREADY !!!
It's horrific to see the US sleepwalking into a dictatorship. I'm going to deal with this in true slashdot fashion, somebody post some pr0n links - it's fapp time.
Would the government stepping in for a case like this imply that AT&T is guilty?
I seem to remember that there are special courts set up for dealing with "secret" subjects. The evidence behind a judgement may remain secret, but the judgement will not. So no I don't buy the "national secret" argument as a way to forstall legal proceedings. Because the legislative branch should always be a part of the process, just like the other two are (note that congress can see a lot of these "secrets". Why not the legislative?)
.. when those being spied upon don't know it.
Now everyone bend over and shoot a moon....
"First, the President has rights and responsibilities under Article 2 that gives him broad powers in times of conflict and war. The NSA wiretap (as in the press) is on communications between suspected terrorists/affiliates OVERSEAS and someone in the US. This type survellance was common in WWII and used extensively."
You are aware that we have to take the very entitiy under investigation, word that terrorists (and associates) were the only one's caught in the NSA web (keeping in mind the NSA is forbidden from domestic spying)
Are you also aware that we have only declared war against a general idea (terrorism). Unlike WWII which was specific countries. Let me know when congress declares war, then we can start applying WWII principles.
You are aware that we have to take the very entitiy under investigation, word that terrorists (and associates) were the only one's caught in the NSA web (keeping in mind the NSA is forbidden from domestic spying)
You also only have the words of proven liers that these are the people actually being targeted.
Are you also aware that we have only declared war against a general idea (terrorism).
Not even that. Governments only tend to be interested in prosecuting a minority of terrorists in the first place, most they try to ignore another minority get government support. A general targeting of terrorists (which would be a radical change) would undoubtedly net quite a few anti-abortionists and "animal rights" activists.
Get these GOD DAMN REPUBLICANS **OUT** of OUR government! I am SO TIRED of this sh!t.
America if you aren't scared at what is going on, you are already a lost cause. To "conservatives" (a.k.a the ones who ruined it all): don't think this terror of a government won't eventually come for you, too. It will, and much sooner than you think. And by then there will be nobody left to save you.
USA = Nazi Germany
USA = Evil Empire
USA = Great Satan
The USA is no longer what it once was. SO DOWN WITH THE USA!
I did a double-take when I saw Andrew Tannenbaum on the list of legal representatives. Closer inspection showed that he is a Trial Attorney for the US DOJ -- not the same (very) geek-famous Andrew Tannenbaum. I need some of CowboyNeal's coffee. :)
Please help find my missing daughter: FindSabrina.org
I've never looked in the code for slash, but why is it impossible to reparent this story as a comment under the original?
Just ban anything anti-government since it might lead to a 'state secret issue'.
We can be as good at it as the russians were, even better.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Also, there are very clear provisions for privacy in the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court already ruled on this at least once: your communications, in whatever form, are your property and you have the right to keep them private. This is why getting a wiretap is (well, was, and kinda still is, though apparently legal justice magically changes depending on which agency/department of the government you work for) so hard to obtain. This is why unauthorized wiretaps are inadmissable in court; the same rule applies to getting a warrant to search your email or whatever you use. The reason why so many people have the miconception that they don't have the right to privacy is because the rights of citizens were greatly eroded under Rehnquist, for if I recall correctly, the Rehnquist court is the reason why police can't search you when you're walking on the street but can search and open any belongings you have once you step inside a vehicle, amongst other and lesser known trespasses and limitations on personal liberties.
Oh, and lastly, FISA is completely constitutional, and very well cemented into the machinery of the federal government, as the FISA court has great authority and works a little too nicely with intelligence agencies (The infamous CARNIVORE was created at the order of the FISA court), so I don't know why Bush exhibited such baffling stupidity by giving an Executive Order to the NSA for the wiretapping (which does break the law, and the only reason there hasn't been an inquiry is because the Republican controlled House and Senate refuse to even consider any sort of legal action) instead of asking the FISA court to issue an order for the wiretapping to the NSA, which probably wouldn've been completely legal... Perhaps because even the oft-bold FISA court isn't that stupid and brazen to so openly violate the Constitution.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Can an illegal act be a state secret in this country? Could, lets say hypothetically, a Congressman or a high ranking official oh, I don't know... kill a hobo. Not because the hobo was a threat to the state mind you, but just because he didn't like hobos. Could he then use the power of his position to make his bumping off of the hobo confidential and be immune from any prosecution on the act?
If the answer is yes then the Judge should dismiss immediately and there would be no accountability for their actions for anyone in the government well enough connected to get something declared a secret. It seems to me that if this were the case, Abramoff and company would have had their shenanagans declared a state secret and still be free. But maybe they just weren't well connected enough. Maybe Dick Cheney could kill a hobo, suck all his blood out of him and eat his heart in some strange ritual and have that information sealed so that he could be forever immune to prosecution.
If on the other hand an illegal act can not be declared a state secret, I think that for this motion to go forward you'd have to have a hearing on whether the wiretapping was legal in the first place. I would hope that this is the case because I want my government officials to be accountable for the things that they do.
Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer and you almost never seem cases like this where the Government's a defendant. It would seem to make sense that illegal actions could not be confidential but this area of the law does seem to be pretty vaguely defined so I wouldn't be surprised if it actually goes the other way.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Learn to spell.
2. Who watches True Lies?
3. Fictional television shows are just that - fictional.
4. The concern is that the surveillance is domestic (i.e., not spying on another country to gain intelligence).
5. Domestic spying is covered by the FISA statutes.
6. The FISA statutes require that the Federal government get a warrant from the FISA court either before or in a reasonable amount of time after the domestic spying.
7. The Federal government did not get a warrant from the FISA court either before or in a reasonable amount of time after the domestic spying.
8. George Bush likes to claim that he does not believe the FISA statutes, specifically enacted after former-President Richard Nixon conducted domestic surveillance without a court warrant (to prevent same), apply to him.
9. Even if FISA statutes are somehow unconstitutional, Bush has failed to challenge them in a court of law.
10. Even if FISA statutes are somehow unconstitutional, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution still applies.
11. George Bush's job is not "[to be] the decider." George Bush's job is (from his oath of office): "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In closing, why would you not want to know what your government is doing? That seems a very silly way to live your life.
Given,
I just spent 1.5 hours on a second line trying to get the boneheads at ATT to fix my blooming main land-line I'd much rather the EFF sue to get ATT to provide better customer service.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Let's be liberals for 8 years:
1) Spend billions on the U.N, who feed it to foreign warlords and terrorists. Let these warlords starve their citizens, instead, training terrorists and stockpiling arms.
2) Let's have abortions. Lots of them. Let's kill babies. As a matter of fact, let's train the rest of the world how to have abortions. Let's promote a complete LACK of social responsibility. Let's promote the growth and use of drugs.
3) Let's pardon every criminal. Let's abolish the death penalty. In fact, let's encourage gang crimes! Let's get out our saxophone and have a party.
4) Let's pay for more welfare, never mind that 40 years of welfare has not cured one person of poverty... in fact, it's made it worse. But let's make poor people REALLY feel like they can't accomplish anything by giving them FREE healthcare for life.
5) Let's piss off the middle class and the wealthy by increasing the tax burden. Increase the level of "poor" people by decreasing their share of taxes... thus making the load on the wealthy that much higher. Maybe we'll drive all the wealthy people overseas where they belong!
6) Let's invite EVERY poor person from every other country here. Let's pay for their health care TOO!
7) Let's blame the Republicans for everything. Never mind that they have moral values, or that they stand up for all the minorities in every other country that can't stand up for themselves. Let's have blowjobs in public office. Let's treat women interns like trash, and make our wives look like complete fools, and then lie about it to 270 million people for months.
8) Let's pump CNN and the NY Times agenda EVERYWHERE. The liberal media can control the outcome of the elections if we try hard enough.
Is there any TRUE story which makes Bush look good??
First, one must ask: WHAT can be secret? The main elements of the story (ATT wiring closet, brands of gear inside, what it does, NSA wiretaps, ability to cycle over all calls) have been told in public now. Rather the state secrets stuff seems to be a ploy to avoid an injunction. Unless something can in fact be kept secret that is not already known, the ploy is disingenuous (polite way of calling it a damned lie). This should not be permitted to overcome a Constitutional issue. If the info tried were limited to what has been in the press so far and on the net, EFF could I think prove its case. The Constitutional issue should be squarely joined though. This notion that because a number of prior Presidents ignored or violated the Constitution, it's OK to do it all the time on a scale unimagined in the past is flat out wrong and should be thrown out. It is unsurprising that the son of a director of CIA (GWB, son of GHWB) should view intel actions as benign, but history does not support the notion that they are always or even usually so.
By now it should be obvious that we can't expect the government to play by the rule of law. The best option is to get companies to stop cooperating, and I feel the best way to do that is to cancel your service with At&T, and show them in dollars how much it will hurt them to spy on their customers.
A few weeks ago I cancelled my at&t phone and dsl service. I'd previously been a happy & loyal customer for 7 years. I explained to the cancellation dept why I was ending my service. I spent twenty minutes arguing with the woman on the other line who refused to believe her company would do such things. So I gave her about 5 url's explaining what At&t had done, how several ex-employees had come forward, etc etc. An hour later she called me back after contacting her superiors and the companies legal dept to get their side of the story. They told her (I'm not kidding here), that AT&T was being sued by anti-privacy advocates because the company was refusing to divulge customer information.
Yes, thats right, the companies legal dept is telling the employees that they are being sued for being "too protective" of customer info.
Cancel your service. Tell them why. Make them know the cost is high when they conduct business in this manner.
Come on, Government - if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear, right?
(Why does that sound familiar?...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
...who the fuck needs coffee?
If you want to understand the legal issues, here's an article from the Yale Law Journal that covers the background.
Like the family members in the season with the wedding, or that senator's son who was interrogated, and so on.
We've known about them doing that for a long time. The only thing that really bothers me is that they're not going through the motions of dismantling the whole thing and rebuilding it bigger and better under some mountain in Colorado. In fact they're dropping all pretenses and that doesn't bode well.
Civil suits are not to determine if an act was illegal, that's what a criminal case is for, a civil suit is to determine if there were damages done. Take OJ Simpson for example. He was brought to criminal court for the murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. He was found not guilty. However her family then dragged him to civil court and sued him for wrongfully causing her death. There is was found he did wrongfully cause her death, and lost almost all of his assets.
The two were discreet, though related cases.
So same situation here. The EFF is suing AT&T in civil court, they are charging them with a crime. They can't, only prosecutors can charge people or entities with crimes. That's really what the state secrets act applies to, civil caes, not criminal ones.
The intent would be something like this:
Suppose I work for Ratheon on some classified project, the kind where I can't even tell my family what sort of work I do, much less specifics. One day, I fall over and have to be rushed to the hospital, turns out I have severe cirrhosis of the liver, which the doctors suspect is from alcohol abuse. However I go and file a lawsuit against Ratheon, I claim that actually my cirrhosis was cause by my work. Strange, you say (and the Judge says), how so? Well to answer that, I'm going to have to reveal what it is I do and subpoena a bunch of coworkers and highly classified documents and so on.
So the government looks at this and realises that by doing this, I will be revaling some critical state secrets. I'm working on an orbital terrorist mind-control laser that make it so whenever they have self-destructive thoughts about killing themselves and others with a bomb, the instead engange in other self-destructive activities like listening to Brittney Spears' CDs that doesn't hurt others. They can't let word of it get out, or the terrorists will start wearking AFDBs and blocking the laser. So they invoke the state secrets act to stop the case. They basically are saying that the importance of the classified information outweighs my need for potential compensation. I'm not claiming my employer did anything criminal, just that they owe money.
Is it only me that sees some connection between this and at&t desire to charge for priority content on their network. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
>>It's also still pouring into the submissions bin, so I'm not the only one not yet awake.
You're the only one getting paid for it, so I expect more from you.
I know... we should enter into a reciprocal remote spying agreement with another country we're close with. For example, we could spy on Brits for Tony Blair, and they could spy on Americans for us. Then, we just share the intelligence! Now America would not be spying on Americans any longer. That should work, right? After all, we already participate in extraordinary rendition!
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Put up or shut up, so to speak...
So, you are alleging, the Iraq war was an excuse created to be able to spy on US citizens? Whatever the possible benefits of such spying, did not the evil Reichstag-burning Repukkkes already have an excuse for it — the Afghan war?And did not the noble Democratic lions vote for the war en masse, because they (rightly) wanted to depose Saddam too, and were just as concerned about his WMDs shenanigans?
Oops...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Wrong!
Unless you edit everything that comes out of your mouth there is no way that you are completely clear of the government's eye. A slanted statement about an anti-piracy bill could be used against you. If the government taps your phone and they want you to look like a terrorist there is nothing to stop them. They control the records so even things you didn't say can be used against you.
This problem has little to do with this lawsuit, it has to do with trust. If a government is monitoring its own citizens for terrorist behavior it no longer trusts it's citizens. Innocent until proven guilty has become guilty until proven innocent!
The word I was searching for was childish, but I used silly.
"Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet this morning, and double posted this one." Looks like Cowboy Neal may be Zonked!
it has been alleged that that already occasionally occurs. Read "Chatter : Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping"
1 46413923/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5544017-36798 64?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400060346/qid=1
"Secrecy is a maverick element," Keefe writes, in this critical analysis of American intelligence-gathering. His book examines the history of America's spy programs and those of its allies and--using little investigation and no classified sources--unveils much of the inner workings of the National Security Agency (a hundred satellites, thirty thousand eavesdroppers, a six-billion-dollar budget). Keefe also worries about the self-defeating effects of keeping so much from the public: secrecy might be essential to the success of spy missions, but it can also conceal privacy violations, abuses of power, and, perhaps worst of all, operational failure. Keefe writes with frustration that, facing allegations of malfeasance or incompetence, the N.S.A. or the C.I.A. will simply stonewall. "Trust us," the agency will say. "We can't tell you why you should trust us. But trust us."
Gee, how about this one fucktard?
If Bush can claim responsibility for the first, he can damn well be blamed for the second. But if you read the following quote from the article, it seems much more likely that we can blame his energy policies for the gas price increase than give him credit for the increase in consumer spending as people replace all their destroyed stuff.
"Illegally spying on citizens isn't criminal?"
Yes it is. Now, that we've got that out of the way, how about we discuss THIS case?
One thing though, what's the point of repeatedly insisting that it's "illegal" when it hasn't been adjusdicated? I mean, apart from karma whoring?
That the same idiotic crap that you people pull all the time, and it's gone so far beyond tiresome that I don't think there's a word for it.
No one gives your third grade assessment of the laws in question any credibility, so stop saying stupid shit about subjects that you haven't bothered to research.
It's the politics of the owners and editors that determines what gets printed. Care to take a guess at what their politics might be like?
Oh, and I am so sick of the "Yeah, well your guys did it too!" argument. First, the republicans are orders of magnitude worse than the Democrats in the corruption and abuse of power department. Second, and most important, is the fact that just because one's opponents do something illegal or immoral doesn't make it okay for you to do it, and doesn't automatically exempt you from criticism. Trying to point out that others do it too is just trying to divert attention from the real issue.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The terrorists and their cronies perhaps don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but what about the *rest of us*?
Or are you saying that the government knows with unerring accuracy who all the terrorists are, and what their phone numbers are, but is *so* unbelievably incompetent that they can't use this information to track them down and kill them?