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.'"

Comments

Proposed Strategy

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[TheSpoom]

Personally, if he answered "no", I'm afraid that wouldn't be good enough for me.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[CRCulver]

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.

The NSA wouldn't be willing to do this because part of ensuring the efficacy of its interception capabilities is making no public comment whatsoever. See Bamford's The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets for a layman's introduction to why keeping one's mouth totally shut is the only way to defend SIGINT gathering.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[NoTheory]

FYI, Michael V. Hayden is the former head of the NSA. Also, i sincerely doubt that they'd put the head of the CIA under oath. The republican senate has been extremely leery about putting anyone under oath who might face tough questions (I.e. justice department officials such as Alberto Gonzales).

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

I'm pretty sure he can plead the fifth. To get and keep his security clearance he can never divulge classified information. This program is no doubt still classified despite the fact that it was leaked. If he were to just confirm its existence he would be breaking the laws relating to his security clearance and subject to prosecution. You can't make people break the law, or incriminate themselves on the witness stand assuming the Bush administration hasn't unilaterally overturned this basic civil liberty yet. To get Hayden or anyone else in the NSA to testify about this program it would have to be declassified which ain't gonna happen.

If there was enough information leaked already to clearly establish that the records were turned over illegally then they might still have a case, but the government probably will try to have all the leaked evidence thrown out and to prevent anyone in the phone companies, who might not have a clearance to worry about, from testifying on national security grounds.

You would hope that if the law was broken, and it almost certainly was, that the phone companies and the government would be held to account. There is a communication act the explicitly forbids releasing your phone records without a court order.

It is an unfortunate fact that laws are much more vigorously enforced against ordinary citizens than they are against people in power. When the DOJ brings a Federal case against a citizen their success rate is extremely high like 80%. When citizen's bring a case against the government their success rate is extremely low. Welcome to Fascism.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[PapayaSF]

The information itself may be classified but the fact of whether or not they collected it shouldn't be.

Really? Isn't that like saying circa 1943: "The information itself may be classified but the fact that there is a secret project at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge and Hanford involving uranium shouldn't be"? Or perhaps "The photos themselves should be classified, but the fact that many photo recon missions are being flown over the Normandy coast shouldn't be?"

Sometimes keeping secret the fact that information is being collected is as important, or even more important, than the information itself.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[gstoddart]

The information itself may be classified but the fact of whether or not they collected it shouldn't be.

Unless they're not willing to share the fact that they've collected it, and deem even that to be a state secret.

All they have to do is say "Your honour, if people knew the ways in which we spied on them, they'd switch to other ways to avoid us". If they were stubborn, or just the invasive idiots we believe them to be, they'd fight this just on principle and to deny you the knowledge of if they did it or not.

Heck, it's a brilliant legal strategy. Let anyone make any old allegation about government wrong-doing, and simply invoke state secrets. "We're not saying we did something wrong, or even that we did it but we think it was right, we're just simply not going to tell you, and you can't make us."

The perfect magicians sleight of hand -- while you're looking over here at the left hand, the right hand has snuck into your house and rifled through your stuff. Of course, that doesn't help you determine if the left hand just did something naughty.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[NoTheory]

The Fifth Amendment protects SELF-incrimination. It does not protect you against testifying about other matters. If you have been called to testify and have been sworn in, and do not testify, you can be held in contempt of court or congress. At least, so far as i understand it. Since Michael Hayden != NSA or any telecommunications company, the 5th amendment has no relevance to this case.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[susano_otter]

A lot of intelligence-gathering techniques rely on the fact that your enemy is unaware that he is leaking intel in some way.

As long as he remains unaware, and continues to leak intel, you can stay a step ahead of his game (whatever it may be).

The moment you describe your techniques, the enemy has an opportunity to become aware of his leaks, and plug them.

Leveraging your enemy's ignorance is a key component in getting good intel on your enemy. It is very different from encryption, in the sense that good encryption does not become stronger from being secret, but good intel is often unattainable unless it is kept secret.

When your enemy knows how often your satellites pass overhead, he stops revealing his troop movements during your satellite passes.

When your enemy knows you are tapping his phone lines, he stops revealing his plans by discussing them over the phone.

Thus, it is always in your best interest--and in the best interest of those you have set out to defend--to never reveal to the enemy the various was in which he is helping you to defeat him.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

I found the Criminal Information Protection Act which codifies classified information in a trial, but as I expected it is completely written in the context of the government being the plaintiff when they need to use classified information to convict a defendant of espionage, terrorism or leaking. You see the government will divulge classified information to nail you but they wont allow you to use classified information to nail them.

Having researched it I agree that the government will try to just use the state-secret privilege so Hayden wont even make it to the stand. If by some miracle the judge doesn't cave to it and Hayden does have to testify then I assume either CIPA will have to come in to play and be bent to this novel case, or Hayden will just refuse to answer any questions that would divulge classified information because it would in fact incriminate him in the process if he did it in a public court.

The Wikipedia article on the states-secret privilege is quite interesting and probably more interesting than the WSJ article.

Its not even a law, its just a precedent that was established during the McCarthy era where the Air Force used it, apparently fraudulently, to cover up the fact a B-29 crash was due to poor maintenance of the air plane, and was basicly negligence on the part of the Air Force.

"In United States v. Reynolds (1953), the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court which they had deemed a threat to national security. In 2000, the accident reports in question were declassified and released, and were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in the landmark case."

Just goes to show you that once you let your government establish an illegal and unconstitutional precedent, during times of war or paranoia, to screw you, they can continue to abuse it forever. The Bush administration has been successfully using the fact that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war to justify denying American citizens basic due process today, and that FDR spied on American cables in World War II to justify spying on Americans now indefinitely.

Another interesting invocation of the "state-secret privilege" was in 2005 in a patent suit brought against none other than AT&T. Apparently a company called Crater Corp thinks AT&T is violating its patents for "WetMate underwater fiber optic coupling devices" which I'm guessing is probably being used by the U.S. to tap and evesdrop on fiber optic cables on the ocean floor. I would assume it must be used for tapping otherwise it wouldn't be classified. Now the U.S. has used underwater tapping technology against the Soviet Union for a long time, both on copper and fiber optic cables, but I bet you the NSA in concert with the U.S. Navy is underwater tapping any fiber optic cable they can't eavesdrop on land with the help of U.S. phone companies. It would be an interesting case to tack in to this case against AT&T.

The "state-secret privilege" was also use to defeat a case brought by Maher Arar, the Canadian detained by the U.S. at a New York Airport on his way home to Canada. You probably remember reading about it here on slashdot. He was shipped by the U.S. to Syria where he was abused for a year or so before Canada finally managed to free him. His crime as best I remember was he signed as a reference on a lease for a friend of a family member

Bah!

[Umbral Blot]

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.

Re:Bah!

[nuzak]

> We do (sort of) have a say. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

I'm sorry but that's not good enough. The rule of law is not something that should be lumped in with tax cuts and gay marriage and all the other happy fun wedge issues.

We can start with trying to vote out the current elite. But we need laws that hold the government accountable, we need to impeach after the fact (strips 'em of pensions and the rights to hold any other office), and so on. We cannot allow tyranny to be the natural result of a term-limited official.

Re:Bah!

[Tackhead]

> We do (sort of) have a say. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

Remember, Remember, the Seventh November,
Congress, Corruption and Rot.
I see no reason Dempublican treason,
Should ever be forgot.

Re:Bah!

[TheGratefulNet]

to put it in the simplest possible terms:

"this is not your father's america".

what we have, now, is nothing close to what the founding fathers envisioned.

Re:Bah!

[spun]

I'm reminded of an old political cartoon. In the first panel it shows an ugly rat in an excercise wheel in front of the US Capitol. He is running to catch a bundle of money dangled in front of him by a fat cat in a tuxedo. Behind him a mob bearing pitchforks and torches advances on him yelling "Throw the rats out!"

In the second panel, the mob has installed a cute mouse in the excercise wheel. The mouse is running after that same bundle of money while the mob walks off congratulating itself on a job well done.

Re:Bah!

[Intron]

Yes. I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished.

the next step...

[geoffspear]

Why stop with the telecomms?

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.

Re:the next step...

[NoTheory]

I am kind of depressed that parent got modded funny. This is a valid point. The question at hand is really what is the purpose of classifying information, and what is a just use of the powers of classification. The Bush administration does clearly use it for their political benefit (Cheney's energy task force being the most egregious example). And i don't know whether a non-partisan case can be made for using classificational powers in this manner.

Re:the next step...

[NoTheory]

But that's the point. The only justifications are partisan ones. Behavior like this should be unacceptable regardless of who you are. Just because the Dems did it, like the Republicans before them, and the dems before them, and the republicans before that, does not justify current behavior.

Nothing to hide

[Toby The Economist]

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*?

Re:Nothing to hide

[MrSquirrel]

Exactly -- if they think it's okay to spy on us then why can't we "spy" on the information they obtained from us? With a new non-civilian intelligence head, things don't look good for American civil liberties. I don't see any form of oversight keeping the government in check from abusing/misusing information. Power corrupts -- absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Recursive Iteration

[H3lldr0p]

But what if the fact that the information was handed over was itself a state secret? Then we get into a wonderful recursive cycle of classifing the classified classification into a new category of secret classfications. This is perfect for the government agentcies involved becuase they can continue to deny that they have denied any denials about programs that have been denied to exist.

See? It's all so simple for them.

He Could Lie

[eldavojohn]

Personally, if he answered "no", I'm afraid that wouldn't be good enough for me.

He could lie but you have to remember that there are people in the NSA with an axe to grind.

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.

Re:He Could Lie

[AuMatar]

No they aren't. Important men are concerned with maintaining their power/money/influence. While a few are megalomaniacs, most don't give a shit about history. As such, they'll lie in a second if they think they can get away with it and the lie will help them. Hell, Bush lied about WMDs and started a war over it, you don't think Hayden will lie over a few wiretaps?

Re:He Could Lie

[skarphace]

The Bush Administration did not fabricate evidence, they merely ignored the evidence that did not support their agenda. This is not lying.

A lie of ommission is still a lie.

This is the nature of intelligence.

No, the nature of intelligence is to find out which ones are correct and which ones are false by INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS. The nature of intelligence is NOT filtering out intelligence reports that do not support your agenda by someone totally not qualified to do so.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

This is my $0.02 about why I do not subscribe to the belief that Bush intentionally mislead Congress and the American public. If blame is to be placed on anyone for the war, it should be on the NSA, CIA and Executive/Congressional branches of the government for crippling our ability to gather reliable intelligence in the field.

You make some very good, well presented points, but you left several major critical facts out of your analysis.

We know for a fact that one of if not the most important goals of this administration since before they even got into office was starting a war with Iraq. We know for a fact that they knew the American people wouldn't go for it. We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.
We know for a fact that once said event happened that they immediately began agitating to attack Iraq even though there is no evidence of their involvement. We know for a fact that they intentionally misled people in an attempt to make them think Iraq was responsible for 9/11..

If you are not aware of all of these facts, then feel free to read it in their own words.

Add in the fact that the CIA specifically told them not to run with the known bad information that they had and they intentionally ignored it in order to make out Saddam to be a big threat and it's obvious that the situation is not even anywhere near as unclear as your argument would indicate.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

On the contrary, we know none of these to be facts. We know that Saddam tried to assasinate Bush v1 and that Bush v2 was pissed about that, but we "know" the later only by heresay.


I provided you a link to the web page where the members of this administration stated exactly those facts in no uncertain terms. Go read the website. Then look at whose website it is. Don't say something isn't a fact after I present the proof right to you. It lowers you.


The idea that Bush consciously thought that the only way he could get Saddam would be as a response to a "Pearl Harbor" style attack, is quite honestly insane in nature and...

The idea that you are an American but do not care enough about your responsibilities to have even read the policy papers that the members of the current administration put out back in 1999 stating exactly what I just said is, unfortunately, not insane. It's all too common among Americans these days.

it suggests that you believe 9/11 was not caused by Muslim extremists, but rather was a staged event.

No, it does nothing of the sort. Reread what I said. I was very careful to state verified *facts*. All these facts demonstrate is motive on the part of the administration. Nowhere did I implicate the administration in anything except *using* 9/11 as an excuse to carry out what they had planned in the event of such an attack.
The facts arew what they are. The implication is pretty iron clad as well as they stated that they wanted to do exactly what they have done in that event.

Now, clearly the *facts* do suggest (this is the suggestion you mentioned above. You misinterpreted it as if I said it which clearly isn't true) the perfectly reasonable (you automatically came to it yourself once you were made aware of the relevant facts.) question as to whether there was anything else besides incompetence involved in the success of the attacks, but I don't have the answer to that.

These claims have always baffled my mind and makes me feel like everyone who wasn't there to witness the planes hitting those buildings or ditching into oblivion at 600 mph in a field in Pennsylvania merely saw 9/11 as a special TV featured event.

Then you go from making up the idea that I believe something different than what I directly and clearly stated to pretending that I'm claiming that the attacks never really happened.

This is the level of discourse in this country right now. Go back reread the conversation and look at how we went from me making a statement of a trivially verified fact which you don't even give enough of a shit about your own government to verify to you claiming that I'm claiming that the 9/11 attacks never happened.

Complete bullshit, Dude.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

You know, I absolutely, 100% remember reading a statement like that on that website very shortly after 9/11 - and the paper was from the mid-to-late 90s. I distinctly remember emailing people about it at the time, it was such a shocker even for my own jaded ass.

The particular paper I'm linking the pdf from that same site (your googlefu could use some improvement. I got it on the first hit with this search: "site: www.newamericancentury.org would take pearl harbor iraq") lists its own publication date as September 2000. Page 63 of 90 has the actual pearl harbor reference.

The fact that it's still up on their website (assuming it's the same, I haven't gone that deep ;-) is proof of their hubris.

The fact that they've gotten away with it this far let alone the fact that they, most likely, will continue to do so is proof of nothing besides the cowardice of the American people.

Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[w33t]

Does it seem plausable that someday voice communications could be handled completely by the people without the need for a big centralized entity like a government or a phone company?

I can see that VOIP is starting to show the potential of decentralized telephony. But could it go completely wireless? I know the technology would be tricky, but it's certainly plausable, yes?

Take for example the LP. Back in the day only very large companies could press records. The machines to mass produce these were expensive and bulky and they were very large. Additionally, after making the records you had to ship them - this required trucks: also expensive and bulky.

Fast forward to today. Anyone can burn a cd and anyone can send a song around the world. The means are here.

Cell phones require very little power and yet can transmit and recieve a signal from very far away. The base station is what currently makes this possible - but why couldn't something like a p2p cellular network be possible? Imagine if every car on the freeway as a node and if instead of a TV antenna on every house there were a repeater.

Perhaps this kind of technology could first take off in heavily populated metropolitan areas, where you are likely to be within mere feet of the next person with a cell phone. Everyone's voice and signals could route through each other.

I know this is a technical feat, but at one time so was creating microscopic holes in mylar with a laser using something as cheap as a meal.

Is this at least feasable?
--
Music should be free

A very serious issue...

[__aaclcg7560]

Even Fox Trot is affected by this.

Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Really now...

[10100111001]

WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?

No one in the mainstream media is asking these questions because if they did they would lose their jobs. More than 95% of all the media we see (radio, newspapers, tv & movies) comes from one of five media corporations. These corporations are interested in maintaining and gaining power. They do not want the general population to start asking these questions, so they rarely allow any dissenting viewpoints to enter the mainstream media.

If you want to hear these and other questions being asked, you need to go to independent media sources.

Re:Really now...

[demachina]

"WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?"

After 9/11 the Bush Administration was extremely successful in their "You are either with us or you are against us" strategy which painted anyone who questioned the Bush administration's actions, including journalists, as unpatriotic, or practically terrorists themselves. This is a classic propaganda and nationalism card and they played it very well. This campaign along with the general mood after 9/11 completely terrified journalists out of questioning anything the Bush administration did. Its just now starting to wear off because a few journalists are realizing they were played for complete suckers by the Bush administration.

Rupert Murdoch built Fox News to completely destroy the liberal media and independence in the news room and it worked. He single handedly turned news networks in to sensationalist propaganda tools for the executive branch, witness Fox's Tony Snow is now the press secretary. The fact Fox sky rocketed to #1 news network after 9/11 made all the other networks try to emulate them, not refute them. CNN is now an embarrassing Fox News parody, they aren't even good at it, so they are tanking. I can't stand watching CNN anymore. One liberal media outlet down. The Daily Show is the only liberal news outlet left and its a comedy show, parody. The best thing that could happen to American media right now would be for Time-Warner to sell CNN back to Ted Turner so he could rebuild a news network to challenge the Fox propaganda machine.

TV journalists are hired and rise through the network ranks based on how photogenic they are and on how much of a sycophant they are to both corprate executives, and politicians, not based on their ability as investigative journalists. The networks White House Correspondents and the Pentagon correspondents are just regurgitating the stuff the White House and the Pentagon want them to say on the TV that night. They are thinly veiled propaganda tools of the government. They don't do ANY independent investigation.

Most media outlets are now owned by large corporations thanks to consolidation, and most large corporations have no interest in investigative journalists who attack the government or stoke controversy that might cost them revenue or political good will.

One of the more disturbing invocations of state-secret privilege by George W. Bush was on November 1, 2001, when he signed Executive Order 13233. This order allows George W. to unilaterally prevent any access to his presidential papers for 12 years after he leaves office, unless he and only he authorizes it. Even if the sitting president authorizes it, he can still veto the release.

If its upheld, this should prevent future Congresses or courts from even seeing incriminating executive branch documents to investigate or charge him with illegal or unconstitutional acts, until 2020. Future Presidents can see them but can't release or act on them unless George W. authorizes it. You have to figure that a few weeks after 9/11, George W. was about to sign some orders to do some things that future governments might consider criminal or unconstitutional and his lawyers created this executive order so he could unilaterally obstruct any future investigations, even when he is no longer President. What might those acts be? Massive domestic spying on Americans without court approval, a prison on Gitmo outside the jurisdiction of any court, arresting American citizens without due process, authorization of torture by the military and CIA, secret prisons, launching an illegal war in Iraq based on a web of lies, dramatic expansion of the Rendition program to snatch people anywhere in the world, in violation of other nation's sovereignty to send people to secret prisons to be tortured?

Rendition is particularly apt in a discussion of state-secret privilege. It was used to kill a case brought by

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[The-Pheon]

The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour.

Maybe you forgot that the United States was invaded by Great Britian in 1812? The Aleutian Islands were invaded in june of 1942.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[plasmacutter]

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?

In other I'll-scratch-your-back news...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12952860/

"President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye."

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[pete6677]

Do you care to back up any of the lofty claims you just made (George Bush crimes and 9/11 conspiracies)? No, I suspect not. I'm guessing you'll just make an immature profane rant of a reply. Grow up little kid, your crap is getting old.

For the record, I am not a G.W. fan by any means, but there is plenty of real evidence to be used to bash Bush without resorting to hysterical fabrications.

Land of the free?

[Cicero382]

I don't mean to knock America, but really!

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 /. before. It's obviously nothing to do with terrorists and so forth.

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).

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[jaystrick]

> 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 thwarted most definitely would!

That's the point. Why make sweeping changes that will get everyone up in arms when you can do it little by little, one basic right after another. By the time mainstream America finally gets the gumption to protest about it, it's too late. The USA 'democracy' is brought down, not by terrorists, but by the ones we've 'elected' to protect us.

I can't think of many (if any) times that our government kept information from us about a project targeted at US citizens that turned out to be for the good of the people. Please, point one out if you know, because my belief in our government has gone the way of the Dodo.

Welcome to the Totalitarian States of America.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Proteus]

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 thwarted most definitely would!

Sure, it doesn't affect your life, but what about the lives of the current administration's (whomever that may be at any given time) political opponents? And no, this isn't tinfoil-hat talk: it's been done before by other administrations, and is a large part of why we have the wiretapping laws to begin with!

Further, what about abuses? Even if abuse isn't systematic, the government is made up of people: what if one person decided to record your phone records and extort you with them. Easy example -- "I see that you've been calling divorce lawyers. I'm betting your spouse would find that very interesting...". Or even s/divorce lawyers/abuse shelters/ in some cases.

It's not about "how much it affects our lives" -- it's that we have this thing called "due process". The basic idea is that the government stays the hell out of my personal life unless they have "probable cause" to go poking around. They want to tap my phone or get my phone records? Cool -- all they have to do is get a judge to agree that there's a reason for it, and they can even do that after they've started in most cases. So why'd they skip that part?

No wiretaps involved here

[steveg]

There are wiretaps involved with the NSA's FISA violations, but there has been no accusation of domestic wiretapping in the suits against the Bells.

The Bell suits all have to do with turning over call records, not wiretapping. Wiretapping is *live* monitoring of the contents of telephone calls, and the legal bar to performing a wiretap is considerably higher than "trap and trace" or "pen register" monitoring. The massive turnover of call records is equivalent to trap and trace and pen register, and according to the PATRIOT Act, all the authorities have to do to get an order authorizing these latter types of surveillance to to atest that such monitoring is "necessary to an ongoing investigation."

So when the NSA claims that those requests for records was legal, they're probably right. The question to be asked, of course, is *should* it be legal, and that's a whole different question. Congress had the chance to fix that, but they passed the renewed PATRIOT Act, so I guess that means that *they* thought it was OK.

And there may be actual domestic wiretapping going on, but we don't know that since if there is, that story hasn't yet broken.

Vote!

[posterlogo]

I know that people are a bit disillusioned right now with the going-ons in government, and feel waiting until Nov 2006 or 2008 to vote is not enough to deal with the immediate threats and violations of the constitution. A unoffical poll of Slashdot posters would demonstrate a near-unanimous discomfort with the wiretapping, but some of the same people would not be willing to vote out the perpetrators. I ask that everyone here put their money where there mouth is. In this particular matter, there is one party that is thrilled to be spying on Americans and questioning our patriotism, the party of "with us or against us": the Republicans. Though it seems almost certain that the violation of the bill of rights offends most republicans (just look at gun-control attempts), in this case the mob mentality has overruled just about any one Republican's personal moral choices. The solution is to not vote Republican: if you are truly uncomfortable with the way the country is headed, it is necessary to realize that the neo-con movement has usurped the moral authority the Republicans once had.

What Will It Take?

[ewhac]

Government and corporations, working hand in hand!

There's a word for that, you know...

Let's review:

• The United States Government is spying on you;
• The United States Government lied to you to get you to agree to go to war;
• The United States Government is sending your children half way across the world to be killed;
• The United States House and Senate are refusing to their jobs of representing you and advocating for your rights and interests;
• The United States Government has undermined your reputation among nations by abandoning global cooperation and diplomacy and acting unilaterally;
• The United States Government has endangered your safety by antagonizing and attacking foreign people, thereby turning them into extremist people;
• The Federal Government and the governments of several states are eliminating your right to self-determination via voting by systematically ignoring all evidence placed before them of voting irregularities and compromised electronic voting machines;
• Etc., etc., etc....

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

In a previous post...

[erroneus]

...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!"

Your tax dollars at work...

[hrrY]

You get what you pay for. In other countries they have a certain *way* of dealing with this stuff; third world countries in particular... but here...we vote to pay the salaries of people that lie to us and create a detriment in rights and privelleges that we have enjoyed and expanded on for decades. And then we come to places like here in an attempt to find perspective that we have always had. Almost everybody knows what has to be done, but we won't do it because it's easier to brew contempt, than to nullify what it is spawns that contempt. The land of the 4x4 philosopher.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[truthsearch]

I'd hate to break it to you, but he's not a criminal. A weak president perhaps, but not a criminal.

He's responsible for the actions of the military. Here's therefore guilty of war crimes. His own lawyer told him so (2 years ago, IIRC).

EFF's bungling again

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

"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.ht 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").

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.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[plasmacutter]

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.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[QCompson]

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.

Another step to totalitarism

[flibuste]

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!

Re:State Secrets Privilege was abused from the sta

[molo]

You can know for sure. Here are the declassified documents:

Declassified case appendix which contains the allegedly sensitive documents, via Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/reynoldspetapp.pdf

Also that kind of under-cover spy information has not been what the SSP has been used for. Read the Wikipedia articles about Siebel Edmonds for an example of the modern abuses.

-molo

No way to defend? No kidding.

[necro2607]

"As it stands right now we have no way to defend against these lawsuits"

No shit. That's the whole point. You fucked up. You're now liable for some serious legal action. GJ HF TTYL ^_^

Is it just me, or is it getting fucking old hearing about huge corporations avoiding responsibility for anything at all costs?

Will this even help anything?

[bigtrike]

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.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[DM9290]

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.

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 .... 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?

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