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...
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...
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?
You must be referring to the Republican war against our freedom.
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.
Would the government stepping in for a case like this imply that AT&T is guilty?
.. when those being spied upon don't know it.
Now everyone bend over and shoot a moon....
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.
I sincerely doubt that anything that can be modified by the President (e.g., Executive Orders) will place any sort of constraint on the behavior of this President.
Illegally spying on citizens isn't criminal?
the only reason this is a "civil" case, is cause the government is too corrupt to regulate it'self properly at this point.. it's left to the citizens to fight back, and unfortunetly, the only way is through "civil" law..
MABASPLOOM!
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