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...
... 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.
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.
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....
First, the President has rights and responsibilities under Article 2 that gives him broad powers in times of conflict and war.
This assumes a war or conflict that can be ended. If it doesn't then the whole article is rubbish and those powers could just be given to the president in all situations, not just in case of war or conflict.
It is obvious that the current govenrment is doing all it can to define the conflict in such a way that it can never be ended, hence it is clear that this conflict is in fact being used to get around the consitution.
I am not trying to suggest that the current US government would follow any racial policies or such similar to the nazi party in Germany in the 1930s, but they are most definitely trying for the same kind of abuse of the democratic system to gather as much power as they can.
broad powers in times of conflict and war
And he went ahead and declared war on an abstract concept! We've always been at war with Eurasia, you know.
As the targets of the program are terrorist or their affiliates, no reasonable person could argue
Open source supports terrorism.
Copyright infrigement funds terrorism.
And most importantly: You can't ask who they're really spying on.
You can't take the sky from me...
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?
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
-Alexander Hamilton
It's very discouraging for a government to only check if the rights specificly said are being infringed upon. While the government takes the interstate commerce and "nessecary and proper" clauses and stretches them to infinity, the 9th Ammendment is almost always ignored. Why does it seem like we'll need Constitutional ammendments to limit what the government wasn't ever given the power to do? I'm not saying that we can ever truly go back to a small government in the libertarian sense, but we could at least not have the government slowly chipping away at our abilities to exercise fundamental human rights, like being reasonable sure that a lawful citizen can communicate privately without fear of being randomly tapped.
The whole concept of "times of conflict and war" is a canard. The US has been in near continuous military action - "times of conflict and war" - since World War 2. It's not what the Founders intended. Beyond that though, the moderation on a post arguing strongly for universal government surveillance of citizens and an effective elimination of freedoms and rights taken as core for 200+ years currently sits at +5 Insightful. It's incredible, and infinitely depressing, how many people actually want this.
If the President is as certain as you are that the people being wiretapped are genuine terrorists, then why doesn't he obtain the required FISA warrants?
Wild Eeep!
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
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!
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!