Slashdot Mirror
Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document
ifitzgerald writes "This morning, Wired News released the full text of the AT&T NSA wiretap documents that are currently under court seal. From the article: 'AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.
Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.
As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.'"
I think our boys at Wired are in trouble now, no?
I was under the impression that court specifically ordered the EFF not to release the documents.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but Wired News != The EFF. Sure, it might be abusing the legal system but doesn't ATT (and other big corperations) do that all the time?
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
This gets to the larger issue. As much as I am concerned about spying on Americans, and the mis-deeds of AT&T, I am much more concerned that the administration's actions in putting itself above the law sets a precedence for gross and blatant violation of the law by many. In short, what we have here is the begining of the breakdown of law and order.
That said, how do you fight those who are above the law when you are constrained to play by the rules? Consider that the administration stopped the Justice department investigation into the NSA by refusing to issue clearances to the Justice Department. Any ideas on how to deal with this when the legal system has been co-opted by those who are committing the mis-deeds? Does legality have any meaning in this case?
>At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?
Yes, we are a nation of laws. One of our first, and most important ones says:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The executive branch isn't given the ability to stifle this right simply because some of the facts it exposes might be embarassing or actually illegal. If you really do think this is a nation of laws, you should be complaining about the White House breaking them long before Wired News.
>For those who would try and turn this around to point at the current administration, Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.
And how exactly would you know that? Because the administration says so? For anyone who even pretends to respect freedom, that's not enough.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Any real conservative would applaud you for your post. It's often thought of that the Republicans are "conservatives". That is incorrect, however. They are not truly conservative in any way.
Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They are sickened by any limits on the freedom of expression, especially when it comes to political correctness or legislation that prevents the release of documents as in this case. A true conservative would be happy that you were able to openly present your view on this matter, and they would support you in every way, even if they did disagree with you. A real conservative would likely even be disappointed that there's a moderation system here.
Many of those who pass themselves off as Republicans today are not conservatives at all, even if they claim that they are. At best, they're neo-conservatives, but even then that's a misleading title. What they have done is take the worst of liberalism, and added extreme feelings of nationalism and religion to it. It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society. That is indeed why the Republicans are popular with rednecks in the US, for instance. They are universally disliked by actual conservatives, however.
So please, don't confuse "Republicans" with "conservatives". They are two very distinct groups of people, with two very different attitues toward basic issues such as freedom of expression, individual liberty, and so forth. Every real conservative is completely mortified by the recent goings-on within the US, and their involvement in wars around the world.
If you'd read to the end of TFA, you'd have seen this paragraph-
The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the EFF, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.
Wired didn't abuse the system, they played right within the rules. This is exactly the sort of case that makes democracies stronger - the government is accused of widespread abuse of power, and tries hard to avoid having any light shed on its case. The press reveals the evidence against the government, and the public gains insight into what their elected leaders are doing. Without an unfettered press, we'd have no clue what they were up to.
Bravo, Wired.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?
This is almost completely untrue. We are not, and never have been, a nation of laws. Laws aren't at the top of the hierarchy, and hopefully never will be. We are a nation of principles, and all our laws are subject to adherence to those principles.
When someone breaks a law in pursuance of those principles, they do our country a service. If they have the courage of their convictions, they may even be able to get the law overturned. If, on the other hand, it is determined that those principles do not support their action, the law will be upheld, and they will be held accountable for violating it.
Wired, from their own words, seems to believe that they're not even breaking the law (violating the court order) in this case. But if they are, they are clearly doing so in an attempt to bring matters to public attention that many of us feel require more public scrutiny.
So, at what point will the administration remember that we are a nation of principles? They seem to have convienently forgotten the ones they don't like.
Glenn Loos-Austin
UI Designer at Epic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/junkchest/
Why bother interviewing the reporter to find out his anon source? just look up his call records for the last couple of weeks and they can find out for themselves.
9 22209
Reporters are worried they are already subject to this kind of thing http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1
Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.
While I agree that CALEA is an overly broad statute, it does require network operators to be able to provide the capability for court-ordered lawful intercepts. The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could. But from that viewpoint, so could any phone company that controls the local loop for Internet or telephone calls.
Klein makes an incorrect intuitive leap when he says that since AT&T Narus system is spliced into their links to Verio, Genuity, UUNet, etc. that means they can read the entire internet. This is wrong, they can only read traffic that has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA. The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).
On the issue of NSA being involved in this, it is possible that this system wasn't implemented for CALEA, but instead to allow NSA to wiretap conversations that had been discovered to be heading out of the country, and then requested to be intercepted. For instance, if they had an IP address of some mail server in Iraq, they could tell (legally without a warrant) AT&T to give them logs and conversations from any AT&T customer, over any AT&T network link, specifically to that foreign IP address. Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.
Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees. Which would be a logical part of the protection of a CALEA lawful intercept operation from being tampered with by foreign agents, or non-authorized parties.
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia? Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!" Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City? Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time. Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties. Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion. I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.
--- yr pal cal "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.
At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.
So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".
You're kidding, right? Slashdot is pretty far right. Look at the discussion any time the question of trade unionism comes up. One can hardly call this a left-wing consensus. The number of Thatcherites and Ayn Rand fetishists here is amazing. You'd struggle to find someone on /. seriously favouring the nationalisation of all industry, mass organised labour and a really high (like say 90%) top rate of income tax. THAT would be left-wing.
If there's a political consensus on /., it's a very individualist one. We're hackers, solitary creatures uncomfortable with being interfered with by either governments or corporations. It's right-wing, but also anarchistic, what you might call libertarian.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"When did commiting crimes become ok in the name of patriotism?"
You clearly learned nothing from the American Revolution. Had that revolution failed, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been drawn and quartered as a traitor.
Ever wonder why your signature is referred to as your "John Hancock"? Take a look at a picture of the Declaration of Independence some day. You'll see that by far the largest, most prominent signature is that of John Hancock. This was not him being arrogant - this was him making sure they knew his name. This was an act of courage on his part.
You're replying under the assumption of "The ends never justify the means." Which in almost all cases is true.
The one case where it is NOT true is the attempt to fight for freedom and save our liberties from disappearing. That is what our Founding Fathers did. They were criminals until they successfully won the Revolution.
And so it is now, for people who stand up to our government and say "You cannot trample our rights and liberties. We will stop you." The government considers them criminals (and those who have swallowed the "party" line).
People who care about freedom consider them heroes.
I am in the latter group.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.