Slashdot Mirror
Government May Help Bells Defend Against Wiretap Suits
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "As lawsuits mount against phone companies from plaintiffs who allege their call records were handed over to the National Security Agency illegally, the companies' defense may get help from the U.S. government, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'The plaintiffs, who accuse Bell phone companies of privacy violations and are seeking billions of dollars in damages, would need to delve into the depths of the NSA's surveillance program to make their cases. But the government considers such information top secret, and legal experts expect the Bush administration to assert the "state secrets" privilege in the 20 or more lawsuits filed by privacy advocates in recent weeks. If judges accept the claim, as has been the case in nearly every instance in which it has been asserted since the early 1950s, the suits will dissolve.'"
The information itself may be classified but the fact of whether or not they collected it shouldn't be.
Why don't they ask the director of the NSA, Michael V. Hayden, whether or not their information was collected? They don't need the classified records, just to have him swear under oath (after checking appropriate databases) whether or not AT&T gave it to the NSA.
I would think a simple "yes" or "no" answer would be enough evidence and also keep the classified information concealed.
My work here is dung.
This is so much bullshit. One of the principles of democracy is that the people get a say in how the government is run; preventing people from knowing what the government is up to, and preventing them from suing the government when it does something wtrong, goes against this principle. We aren't quite to the maching on congeress phase, but we are getting there fast.
Philosophy.
Classify all information about lung cancer as a "state secret" and you can get rid of all the lawsuits against tobacco and asbestos companies. Do the same with medical records, and *poof* there go all of the malpractice claims.
It would certainly save trying to ram all those tort reform packages through pesky Congressional committees.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Lovely comment in that recent /. article about that wiretapping equipment show -
The State broadly speaking may argue if we have nothing to hide, then why do we object to being watched?
If this is so, why does the State hide so much from *us*?
He could get up there and contemplate lying. But what if he lied and the information was leaked from the NSA or released after his death that the collections did occur?
Hayden is an important man. Important men (when intelligent enough) are constantly worried about how history sees them after they die. I would wager that his fear of the public finding out that he lied to his country, defied justice and decieved the very people he swore to serve would be a greater weight than the importance of covering up a breach of privacy on that same populace.
My work here is dung.
Does anyone realize that the State Secrets legal tactic has been used by the Bush administrations than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED?
Ask yourself this:
DO WE REALLY live in a time more dangerous than the Vietnam War?
DO WE REALLY live in a time more subversive than the Free Speech Movement of the 60's?
DO WE REALLY live in a time more frightening than the Cuban Missile Crisis?
DO WE REALLY live in a time more threatening to our way of life than the 70's Oil Embargo?
State Secrets was ONLY used in the past when classified data could be revealed in a case such that it would greatly hinder or be a serious detriment to National Security. Now I ask you this: What is that danger? Is it Osama Bin Laden? Is it a terrorist in the Middle East who hates us even more for a War that wasn't justified to begin with? Who is our enemy?! Damn, this is the most infuriating thing!
WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?
I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans. But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls?....And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense... this statement is nothing more than a more sophisticated way of saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear", the last portion really disqualifies you from saying anymore on the subject. It reflects absolutely no respect for the constitutional protections for the people of this nation. Point1: there are many "unenforcible" and antiquated laws on the books which can be used against you if the dominant party doesnt like what you are doing or who you are associating with Point2: even if it is not used for legal abuse, it can be used for closed door blackmail/threats to keep the opposing political groups and corporations "in line" Point3: We have had technically feasible ways to invade people's privacy en wholesale since the late 40's but you didnt see it happen because when they try they face the public wrath Point4: according to that statement above, why are they trying to invoke state secrets to hide their obvious breach of the constitution on multiple amendments? hmmm?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I don't mean to knock America, but really!
/. before. It's obviously nothing to do with terrorists and so forth.
I left the UK in 2001 (just before 9/11) to escape crippling taxes and what I saw as an increasingly oppressive government. I considered two possibilities; the USA and Italy. My wife persuaded (OK, ORDERED) me that Italy was the best bet. On the face of it, at the time, it was the lesser choice. But now...
Forget the taxes, I'm still better off - I'd be even better off in the States, but it's the other thing that concerns me.
Since I've been here I've watched (from a safe distance) a dramatic reduction of the rights someone living in a democracy should expect, both in the UK and the US. Why are you allowing it to happen?
What *really* gets me is - why is it happening? I've asked this question on
It's getting to the point where I'm seriously considering making a tin foil helmet.
PS. Yes, I know similar laws are being considered here, but we have one major advantage. We just say "AAh, F*ck off!" (And that includes the police).
COINTELPRO, do you know anything about history? You do not have to break the law, you just have to disagee with whoever is in power.
There's a word for that, you know...
Let's review:
In case you haven't been paying attention for the last seven years, it may interest you to know: You are being systematically fucked. The press has been bought off; they will do nothing to help you. There is only one person left who can do something about it...
But, you see s/he's too busy, and can't be bothered, at least not yet. See, there was the American Idol finale a couple weeks ago where whatshisface (or was it whatsherface?) won, thanks to your attentive help and eager phone calls. Oh! And, and missing the final episodes of Survivor, Will and Grace, The Amazing Race, and House were simply unthinkable! And then there was "March Madness" back in... uh, March, I guess...
"Public corruption? Senate scandals? Incompetent emergency management officials? Mendacious Attorney Generals? Fuck that! I need to know if Natalee Holloway is still dead..."
See? Very very busy. So if something important is going on, it will need to be really important before we get his/her attention and they start to act and save the United States. It will need to be shocking so that we grab his/her attention. And it will need to be big so that they understand the importance of acting now. In fact, it will need to be so big that it will swamp out all the other "important" stuff for months.
And so, the question we all need to ask is:
What Will It Take?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
...I stated that it's time to take a stand. And from what I've seen so far, the US Congress is also pretty pissed off about the way the executive has been skirting the checks and balances that this republic depends on. Bush does whatever he wants, claims it's legal and when anyone attempts to validate the claim in court, he claims executive priviledge or state secrets. He hasn't replaced ALL of the supreme court judges yet but I wouldn't be surprised if another judge was replaced pretty soon with the turnover in presidential appointees lately. And once he has enough of his cronies on the bench, THEN he might let a couple of issues actually reach the courts for decision.
I keep hearing that line from Star Wars, Episode 1 --- "...I will MAKE it legal!"
The issue is that EFF took this as a press-release opportunity and not as a get-to-the-bottom-of-it opportunity. From EFF's first press release on their lawsuit, they believed the NSA would try to shut the case down with state secrets (and, when the NSA filed the paperwork to do so, it said "NSA is not required to demonstrate specific harm when invoking this statutory privelege, but only to show that the information relates to its activities" (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/DeclKeithAlexa nder.pdf). Knowing that, the EFF made sure that *every* brief it filed shows, in several places, that the lawsuit relies on information relating to the NSA's activities. Is it possible they wanted the case shut down?
t ml). Sounds a lot like "Dr. Felton, don't publish the paper and make a big stink about it, that'll make headlines." Reminds me of something I read on Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200 41206134029429 -- "Page Four is filing the lawsuit. ... Page Five is staging a press conference or working with their allies at the network news magazines to generate incendiary coverage about their lawsuits").
"If state secrecy can prevent us from preserving the rights of millions upon millions of people, then there is a profound problem with the law," says [EFF spokesman, well before even filing the case]" (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70126-0.h
EFF's lawsuit was originally about telecommunications laws that specifically prohibit phone companies from wiretapping for the government without first seeing the government warrant. If EFF had stuck to that, it wouldn't have triggered the state secrets issue. Instead, they made sure *every* document they filed brought up state secrets, and they followed *every* court paper with press releases. Now they're shocked, shocked, that they're getting shut down.
Moral of the story: don't turn your own lawsuit into a circus.
Excuse me while I ignore the EFF.
the majority of this reply is clearly idealogical, no i don't propose you being gagged, and by the way people who moderate are not allowed to post replies in the same article, I would not have modded you troll
that said, i do want to address some things:
But you need to understand something: We are at WAR.
war against what? an abstract concept of "terror"? that concept is being ever expanded to encompass, at latest, journalists and whistleblowers.
The definition of war in the constitution is clear, war must be officially declared by congress against a sovreign foreign aggressor. Officially, the "wars" in iraq and afghanistan are over, and are now classified as occupations. Also, terrorists have no nation, but that does not change the fact that constitutionally you cannot declare war against them as they are not a nation, nor can you declare war against a concept like "terror".
So no, the government is not entitled to suspend habeas corpus as lincoln did, or to intern japanese like roosevelt, both of which, by the way, are looked upon with great sorrow by our people.
War is not pretty, and yes, the government is violating our privacy. Uncle Sam knows I'm having pizza for dinner. I COULD CARE LESS.
you you you.. this nation is made of more people than you, and a major theme in the founding of this nation and the constitutional guarantees provided is to protect the minority or the "unpopular" from the will/wrath/oppression of the majority.
I might also remind you that you are more likely to be involved in a non-terrorist related plane crash, die in a fatal car accident, be murdered in a home invasion, or (in my case) win a luxury car in a sweepstakes, than to be bombed or slain in a terrorist incident.
They are using your own fear against you. They can easily perform these same legal procedures within the law through visa, and I would be perfectly fine with that, but they refused.
We have no legal recourse against them at the moment because our elected officials are laying down on the job they are supposed to be doing in protecting and representing the american people and constitution, but that does not mean the telcos are immune. By voluntarily handing over this information they have violated federal laws and their own terms of service contracts, and as such should be held liable. There is no need to delve deeply into the issue, all that is needed is to confirm they did hand over those records, and they will be guilty as charged.
I will quote:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
I'm a populist and a social (though not economic) libertarian. As such they will definitely come for me first. so let me ask, when sir will they come for you.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.
So you don't care if we lose some constitutionally protected rights in the war on terror, because otherwise the scary boogeymen terrorists will blow us all up and then we wouldn't have a constitution anyway, right?
Place a lot of trust in the government, do you? Wouldn't it just be better then to tear up the constitution and structure ourselves as a military dictatorship? I imagine you and you pizza-filled boring life would be safer then. Seriously, if you are willing to take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack, why not 24/7 martial law? Would you support temporarily abandoning our justice system? We could just shoot suspected terrorists on sight. I'm curious to hear just how far you're willing to go to "win" this WAR.
Dissolve any lawsuit against invasion of privacy through "State secret"
Get rid more and more of freedom of speech everyday.
Arbitrarily deport and detain people to lawless countries to interrogate them freely.
Use torture on presumably innocent people.
Best recipe for growing a fascist country. Good job Bush and good luck fellow americans!The thought that this type of thing is even necessary is based on the flawed assumption that terrorists are trying to be covert in the first place.
Several of the 9/11 terrorists were wanted as suspects and living under their real names for at least 9 months in Los Angeles. One even purchased a car in his own name and was listed in the Los Angeles white pages.
Even if a massive reduction in privacy would help save a couple lives, I'd personally rather not live a life without liberty. We're mocking the sacrifice made by hundreds of thousands of patriots who have died to protect our liberties by giving them up without much of a fight.
If the Government wants to find out who I talk to and when... it's pretty easy to get that information now as it is.
.... perhaps that can be used to influence your future behavior.. Do you want to condemn todays children to a future of serving the executive branch as blackmailable pawns?
without a warrent? how do they do that?
If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.
May I listen as well? Its a waste of time but I'll be keeping a record just in case I ever need it for your protection.
My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.
You are making the argument that the government has the right to listen to something because it has no interest. What if you are ARGUING with your wife? Perhaps that is of interest. What if your wife mentions that she is pregnant. What if 9 months later... no baby is born. What if men in black show up and arrest you and your wife for having an illegal abortion. (there was no visit to the clinic.. so that creates probable grounds to believe there was an illegal abortion). What if you are charged and your name is put up in the local newspaper.
What if after an investigation the prosecution is dropped on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect for a conviction, but its too late.. the election in which you were a candidate has already happened and you were defeated because of the air of suspicion surrounding your lifestyle. (afterall you campaigned on a pro-life ticket).
Use your fucking imagination!
They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place.
And listening to your conversation is not relevant... so by your logic... the government OUGHT to listen to it?
What if come FUTURE president just wants to be "president for life", and decides to use the information to blackmail all of his (or enough of his) political enemies, and impose a dictatorship. Perhaps you did something you were ashamed of when you were a teenager.. perhaps you dont want that phone conversation becoming public
By then it will be too late.
I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans.
So now you are implicitly arguing that it is legitimate to spy on citizens to insure they are in full compliance with law?
You are also living in a fantasy world that the only thing people are embarassed or ashamed about is CRIME. People are embarassed about simple nudity!! You can't think of anything which could be used to deprive people of free will?
We are already speeding down that slippery slope, that the totalitarians insist on denying even exists.
Quite frankly, if some politician wants to call a gay sex hotline, that has nothing to do with his ability to be a politician, and yet it is the type of information he would do almost anything to keep out of the public light. Thereby making him a potential stooge for the Executive Branch, foreign powers, fundamentalists, criminals. This is a threat to the seperation of powers.
What if some less than honest NSA agent (suprise THEY ARE ALSO MOTIVATED BY GREED) decides to make some extra cash and mines the database for blackmailable behavior. The phone companies by themselves would not have the power, but the NSA can connect these records to tax records and god knows what else they've got.
I wont even contemplate what would happen if Al Quaeda or a foreign government ever figured out how to tap into all of these massive centralized data warehouses that you dataphiles seem to think are so wonderful.
But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwa
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.