Slashdot Mirror
The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
This Just In: NSA Whistleblower's body found dead in burlap sack on side of road only hours after his identiy made public...
Mark Klein is a great American hero and a patriot.
Expecting the neo-con mod-down in 3...2...1..
Forbes has an article on how the EFF has won the first round by getting the judge to agree that the documents should be released. Of course, AT&T will get a chance to scrub them clean of "trade secrets", a loophole they will no doubt abuse. However, at least the judge is showing a willingness to get down into the nitty-gritty.
Electric Monkey Pants
Documents remain sealed, but remain in evidence.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Nothing will come of this.
When the evidence surfaced, there was the usual fracas about rights and privacy and yadda yadda, and then nothing got done for a few days. Then, the contents of this so-called secret room became public knowledge (Those commercially available network monitoring devices that were mentioned in a previous slashdot article.)
Those few days were more than enough to completely change the contents of that room. I'm not saying that that is what happened, I'm just saying that there is no way for us to know if the contents of the supposed secret room stayed the same. What would you do if you were the NSA and you were monitoring a goodly percentage of internet traffic and got found out? You'd try your damndest to hide it, because you're the NSA and that's what you do.
Plus, if any of this gets successfully filed under 'Homeland Security' you're never going to get a judge to do anything but blow smoke.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
That's a flat-out wrong definition used by the Karl Rovian apologists. What does a "leaker" do when the subject of contention is the executive branch? Go to the cops and let the case get dropped? A leaker is anyone who discloses protected information, regardless of the recipient. A whistleblower is leaker releasing evidence of illegal or unauthorized activity or a coverup of that activity.
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...the public is the ultimate authority, so there is no difference between revealing information to the public and revealing it to the authorities.
The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
You're right. He's not a whistleblower. He's a hero and a true patriot.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
Leakers go to the media.
Uh right. So, if you're a cop and you discover that the police chief and a bunch of your fellow officers are in cahoots with drug smugglers, you just go tell...who?
If you find out damning information about people who have the ability to have you killed (even if you don't think they'd do it) you have three basic choices:
Your distinction isn't between "wistleblower" and "leaker" it's between "dead sap" and "live whistleblower."
--MarkusQ
P.S. In any case, even if you do get it out in time that they don't gain anything by shutting you up, you can expect to get fired so they can dismiss you as a "disgruntled former employee," and, if you've really got the dirt on them, you may also get your very own swiftboating.
"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc...
Not only did he not have access to it, but he also stated: "The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room."
The NSA doesn't monitor communications businesses for fraud, hacking, etc. That's not their job. Their job is signals/intelligence collection and analysis. A room in a datacenter that's off-limits to everybody but people with NSA security clearences is basically screaming "I'm a massive phone/data tap".
Then why is AT&T's defense "We were forced to do it by the Government" instead of "We didn't do it"?
In the same way that a trade secret that becomes public ceases to be protectable as a trade secret, I would have though that this would cease to merit any protections as it is self-evidently no longer secret, whatever the state may say.
So, on the basis that state secrets does NOT appear to be a valid piece of Common Law, and that there is no secret left to protect, I can see no justification for quashing this evidence. Furthermore, as the documents HAVE been published openly, AT&T have lost all rights to their claim of trade secrets, and so I can see no obvious justification of the evidence even being sealed. We already know what the bulk of it says, as it's online!
The argument over who is right and who is wrong is, in this case, largely academic. The tapping has already been done, the publication has already been done. All the damage either side could possibly suffer is all past-tense. What is present-tense is what arguments either side present to justify their actions, and what evidence they are permitted to present in support of their claims.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
...
...
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course
Now where did i leave that sarcasm key
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This goes back to an argument my someone I know and I have had over this. She's mostly pro-Bush, I... voted for Badnarik because of Bush. I support law and order... real law and order. I think that national security is never a justification for attacking due process of law. Even if we have to have secret trials by jury because the evidence is so dangerous, I don't think things should be hidden from the courts.
Like a lot of Bush supporters, she cites the leaks of information as reasons to not take this to court, but I say just prosecute people who leak information that needs to be confidential and that the public really doesn't need to know about. However, national security is never grounds to hide from judicial review attacks on the Constitution. People who bring evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions need to be protected by the courts.
Something has to be done to protect these people. If I were governor, I would give him a state police protection detail and make it be known that any federal agent who tries to arrest him will be charged with felony kidnapping in a state court. The states need to stand up and protect their citizens. My state, VA, has an obligation to me to protect me from unconstitutional federal abuse because if the feds act outside of the enumerated powers, it's state jurisdiction and any federal coercion in that respect is criminal conduct. Federal agents who abuse, injur or kill people, especially outside of the Constitution's limits on their jurisdictions are criminals, not law enforcement agents and ought to be prosecuted by the the states accordingly.
Mark Klein and all others who expose these attacks against American's civil liberties are true heros to the Republic. These neocon scumbugs know their days are number and will have to go all out on police state in order to continue against the American people, who are the REAL suspect and criminals behind 911, not some fantasy outfit called al Qaeda/make believe war on terror.
"If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11."
You pretend to be non-partisan, but this is the current partisan Republican party line. "Democrats do horrible things too, so don't complain when we do horrible things. Democrats in Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, so stop blaming us."
This is missing the entire point. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for the current evisceration of the liberties some of us still demand. Just like those Democrats who blame the Republicans, you are unable to see past your my-team your-team warfare to realize that the Republicans in power, just like the Democrats in power, are responsible for this.
When will you realize that your sacred Republican leaders of this vicious circus don't deserve defense just because the Democrats have helped them gain nigh-totalitarian control?
And of course, if they were sued over such a program, the Bush administration would immediately file a brief saying no evidence about it could be made public for national security reasons.
No, sorry... No one is bothering to say "this isn't true", they're saying "we can't let this come out because it will damage national security". To me, that's pretty much admitting the program exists and does what is alleged, probably more (which is why they're willing to fight so hard to keep the details secret).
This has been brewing since the initial wiretapping scandal. The reason the administration insisted so loudly that they didn't need to get FISA approval (even though it would have been easy) is because there's more going on here. They've got some sort of system set up that monitors all communications and data-mines the content for terrorist (and probably criminal) activity. They can't possibly get a warrant to examine every single phone call ever made, which is why they say they don't need a warrant.
However, I don't think they're doing it out of malice, or anything. Not yet, anyway. I think they probably are using it mostly for intelligence needs currently. But just as the Patriot Act is increasingly being used to try non-terrorist suspects, and the very terms "terrorist" and "weapons of mass destruction" are being re-defined in court, it won't be long until this data-mining is being used for everything the government wants to do.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Because they weren't legally required to do it. They were merely pressured to do it.
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.
The text above presumes that the congressional oversight committee for these programs has the power to actually do anything. This presumption is incorrect.
The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns? Ask someone outside if, hypothetically, some hypothetical NSA program could be improper? No way - that would put you in jail. Even after the programs are semi-public, these committee members are still prohibited from discussing the programs. Pelosi herself, in an NPR interview a few weeks back, expressed that she had wanted to speak out on the warrantless wiretap program from the very beginning, but was powerless to get external verification of her concerns, because doing so would reveal that the program existed.
Could the committee do something internally, by itself? Perhaps, were it so moved. But since the committee is heavily Republican, the likelihood of that happening is slim (though growing somewhat wider in a time where Republicans seem to want to portray themselves as standing independent of the president, at least until after Nov 2006. But I digress).
That's why you don't see anyone from the "oversight" committee saying anything. Because the oversight committee is just for show, actually having no real power of oversight. Real oversight would allow for accountability, and no one can be held accountable for programs that no one is allowed to talk to anyone about.
Thank god for whistleblowers.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
In short, go soak your head.
illegitimii non ingravare
Whether they were briefed on the "exact" programs or not is not clear; apparently, Pelosi was briefed on something related to the program that came to light months ago, and objected to it when she was briefed on it. OTOH, since the program that has recently come to light is not the same one that was revealed months ago, its not at all clear who was briefed on what, though in order to provide political cover, the administration has released lists purporting to account the number of times particular members received some briefing relating to the NSA surveillance programs.
But the number of briefings isn't the issue, even when you restrict it to whether Congress was informed. The completeness and accuracy of the briefings is the issue.
Based on the runup to the Iraq War and essentially all other actions undertaken by congressional democrats in the last four years, I disagree with your assessment of the idea that Nancy Pelosi is an adversiary of George W. Bush.
the actual-in-the-know political opposition
I furthermore disagree with your claim that there exists an "actual in-the-know political opposition".
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing
I furthermore disagree with your dual implications here that
Personally I think top-ranking congressional democrats are just as much potential casualties of the "political damage" that this breach makes possible, as the White House is. The toadyism in Congress crosses party lines, and I think congressional democrats such as Ms. Pelosi need very badly to keep their base from finding out exactly how badly they have been sold out.
Just a note to our current administration - Orwell did not intend 1984 to be a how-to.
In the very fine print. Article I, section five: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules of the House of Representatives (omitting crossreferences, emphasis added):
I don't know where the GP post got two states from; as far as I can see, it only takes one state legislature filing charges to start a bill of impeachment. Not that such means the House has to pass the bill if the charges show up; and the Senate doesn't get (legally) involved unless the House passes the bill. But charges sent by a state legislature are enough to start the process. Of course, a lot of bills of impeachment have been introduced in our history; most have been killed quickly, one was aborted by a resignation, and two went to trial in the Senate. It's not until either of the latter looks likely that things get interesting.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.