EFF Case Against AT&T To Go Forward

Tyler Too writes "The NSA wiretap lawsuit filed by the EFF will apparently be moving forward. A federal judge has denied the government's request that the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T be dismissed. Among other things, the judge ruled that 'if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security.' The case will now move forward, pending a government appeal."

Comments

I Like His Logic

[Winckle]

"if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security."

Sounds like the "terrorists" might've won.

But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Tackhead]

> Sounds like the "terrorists" might've won.

<voice=texan>
An' they hate us for our freedom. So...
</voice>

> But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.

<voice=texan>
Yeah, it's all your fault! Fer six years some folks have been complaining that the government isn't listening to the people... an' now that it does, y'all are haulin' us into court for it! What gives?
</voice>

Re:I Like His Logic

[Vicissidude]

No, in this case, the problem isn't the filthy lib'rals, but them thar activist judges!

Re:I Like His Logic

[Valdrax]

You know, I'm from the South, and I know that people actually do say "them thar," but I can't read that sentenence and not think it's meant to be read in a pirate's voice:

No, in this case, the problem isn't the filthy lib'rals, but them thar activist judges! ARRRR!

Re:I Like His Logic

[HamOpMW]

I'm no liberal by any means (a democrat who votes republican ) but it sounds like typical government action (I've gone against local gov't in my time) and even when they know they are in the wrong, they still try everything possible. However... this lawsuit is against AT&T, not the NSA. So it looks to me like the NSA either (1) Hasn't caught every terrorist they were investigating (unlikely..HOPEFULLY), or (2) They're worried about being suied again by the EFF for accidently tapping phones of non-terrorists.

Okay liberals, there are times when even the government gets the wrong number! It's not a conspiracy, it's the law of averages.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the basic fear is that the feds are going to be able to tap EVERY call going through there. Maybe not every call, but person X that they are watching (because the feds don't like X's political agenda) calls Y, who was also contacted by Z who had proven links to someone in a terrorist organization. The feds would then think they have free reign to use any method to find something that X may have done.

But if you haven't commited a crime, then you have nothing to fear. Or at least if you don't know anybody who has commited a crime, and also don't know anybody who knows anybody who has contacted someone who has commited a crime. At least we know that investigators never misinterpret or even blatently create false evidence to support their case. There were WMDs in them there blurry photos of Iraq.

Re:I Like His Logic

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

My right to live my life without being molested on a constant basis by the government outweighs your right to not get blown up.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a filthy republican that normally votes republican, but as I said to a republican fundrasier than called the other night, I have totally lost faith in the so-called republican president and his so-called republican lackey's in congress.

Anyway, a government of the people should at least tell the people what they are doing. When is the last time a sign that said speed checked by radar or patrolled by aircraft caused you to always slow down (if you exceed the speed-limit normally)?

Criminals and terrorists who are truely smart will not easily allow themselves to get caught no matter how much surveillance there is.

However the fact that the US Govt. taps international phone lines is not actually new. The current technique may be new. My cousin who lives in Australia and myself, both of Irish extraction were talking about the IRA. After about three or four uses of the term IRA, the telephone line went dead and for about 10 minutes neither one of us could call the other. We both got very strange disconnects when we tried to redial. This happened more on a number of different occasions, until we decided that instead of saying IRA, we would substitute another word. From our very limited experimentation anytime IRA was said more than a handful of times, the line would go dead. Coincidence, maybe, but oddly occurred only during conversations (long or short) regarding the IRA. This was about 14 years ago.

Re:I Like His Logic

[blincoln]

am not saying this to be mean or short-sighted but every time I see a very liberal person taklign about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been. Does it matter that they were talking about a recipe for fried chicken or a rendezvous at a restaurant? No.

That's funny. Every time I hear a very stereotypically "conservative" American talking about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed (or even injured) by some nebulous "terrorist" bogeyman-of-the-week.

The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with blind hatred of the Bush administration, and by extension, the military and intelligence communities.

The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with a blind hatred of anything they perceive as "liberal."

The issue here is not the NSA listening in on one particular person giving a recipe to a friend. It is the mentality that a surveillance society is a good thing. The NSA wiretaps are a product of that mentality, with the logical conclusion of it being totalitarianism. That is why people like me want to see programs like this smashed *now*, before they get even more out of hand.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is, you like dead children?

Re:I Like His Logic

[truthsearch]

But what if it's a recipe from "How to Serve Man"? You support baby-eaters? Won't anyone think of the children?

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Double-Plus Good for the EFF!

Re:I Like His Logic

[Dare nMc]

> genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been.

I don't care about my phone (currently anyway) and gov't intrusion. I don't like it when they use the records they have to silence reporters and any other opposition they have. Also to have something of so much value held so secret.

IE if you have traceability of what/when/how something of so much value is accessed, thats one thing. When it is considered so important to hide, that all leaks/misuse has to be hidden at all cost, then any corrupt (or possibly corrupt) person with access can't be investigated, and can't be harshly disciplined because they might disclose the asset...

After all their are people (many people) reportedly selling a months worth of one persons phone records for over $100. how much would all the records of everyone for years be worth? Were probably talking about a asset with a potential value of billions being diddled with by hundreds of people, in complete secrecy, and already some of those people are known to be corrupt.

Re:I Like His Logic

[swimin]

Read any book with a surveleince society taken to the extreme. 1984 by Orwell will do just fine. Think about living like that. Being afraid to write something like you just did, because there is a very good chance that 10 minutes later a squad of people with machine guns will be at your door. Lord Acton once said:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If you give the government more power, it is doubtful they will use it well. It is quite probable that it will 'need' more power. Blocking this now is important, because it guarantees, and protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure in the future.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Doctor Memory]

the judge ruled that 'if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security.'

Hmmmm, remarkably similar to "If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about". And where have we heard that before?

Re:I Like His Logic

[wasted]

You forgot to include the vice-versa.

Re:I Like His Logic

[rajafarian]

... who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed...

Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americans to live freely and not under surveillance? Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

You say
>they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been.
Patrick Henry said
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Re:I Like His Logic

[WilliamSChips]

DIE as in DEAD

As opposed to die as in alive?

Re:I Like His Logic

[geminidomino]

I think as opposed to "DEAD" as in "jiggly beach vollyball"

Re:I Like His Logic

[geminidomino]

After about three or four uses of the term IRA, the telephone line went dead and for about 10 minutes neither one of us could call the other.

So now we know that Echelon runs on windows 98 and has a buffer overflow exploit.

Good job!

Re:I Like His Logic

[mrchaotica]

Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.

Yeah, but I wouldn't if I knew we were going to just go and screw it up like we're doing now!

Re:I Like His Logic

[mrchaotica]

The difference is who it's being applied to. Private citizens have a right to privacy (that's why they're called "private!"); the government does not.

Re:I Like His Logic

[ghc71]

"Give me liberty or give me death!" is a rallying cry for American patriots. 'Nuff said.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Give us power or you will get blown up" is the ralling cry of the current americian government.

That and "Its for the children", and "Dont let the terrorists win", oh, and dont forget the good old "We have a obligation to police the wold"

Re:I Like His Logic

[TubeSteak]

/me smacks the ignorant hillbilly upside the head.
You sound like one of them Cee-En-En types.
Don' chew know that all them thar activist judges is filthy lib'rals?

Re:I Like His Logic

[TubeSteak]

I wouldn't either.

Instead, I suggest we sacrifice the terminally ill in order to appease the Tree of Liberty's thirst for blood.

Didn't they mean that stuff literally?
/Vote Cthulhu in 2008

Re:I Like His Logic

[cryptoluddite]

stereotypically "conservative" American ... would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed (or even injured) by some nebulous "terrorist" bogeyman-of-the-week.

Yes it's called being a coward. They're too chickenshit to stand up to the terrorists (attacking iraq instead of getting osama) or make us even slightly self-sufficient in energy or start correcting the environment or even cut the budget. These neo-conservatives basically haven't even got a shred of courage at all.

Re:I Like His Logic

[crull]

I immediately thought of 1984 by George Orwell when reading this.

Re:I Like His Logic

[thealsir]

Spot on sir! The government is a public instutition, and since it is funded by the taxpayers, it is owned by the taxpayers. The government is bought and paid for by the people, so it is the people's lackey.

Re:I Like His Logic

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I'm against abortion. I am for murdering children.

Re:I Like His Logic

[huge colin]

My right to live my life without being molested on a constant basis by the government outweighs your right to not get blown up.

No, it doesn't.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

He who is prepared to give up freedom for security deserves neither.

Re:I Like His Logic

[uvayankee1]

Essentially, you can't have freedom and security at the same time. If a government protects my rights and freedoms, then it should protect yours as well, and also those of anyone else who lives here. So if the government is protecting my rights, which I sincerely hope they are, then they are also protecting the rights of someone who wants to read up on how to make bombs or who wants to plot a bank robbery. That's not to say that if authorities get wind of such actions they shouldn't try to tap in and find out about what's going on, but first and foremost, my rights should be protected.

It's also worth noting that the Government can't keep you safe. Never has been able to, never will be able to. It's a frightening thought at first, but if you think about it, there is little that can guarantee safety in this world. So given the choice between our rights and freedoms, which we can protect, and a nebulous illusion of safety, which cannot actually exist, then I would choose freedom.

Finally, the opposite of wiretapping is not people dying, the opposite of wiretapping is freedom from government survelliance and the protect of my right to free speech, and governmental respect of my privacy.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all responsible for our leaders actions! If we get blown up because we don't know or we don't care to know or we just don't care what our leaders are doing, giving them more power to do things in secret so we wont know and cant care is no more a democracy then communist Russia. If you cant take responsibility for your leaders actions then you should change your leaders and not punish the citizens. They represent us we live in a representative democracy what they do is what we asked them to do. Once they do things in secret it is no longer our government and the terrorist have WON by destroying our democracy through our fears from being terrorized. So the Answer is I do have a right to NOT be harassed by the government and I DONT have a right not to get blown up! Live free or die is not just a bumper sticker.

Re:I Like His Logic

[IAmTheDave]

No, it doesn't.

You're right. But it does outweigh your right to have the government take away our rights to help "protect" you from getting blown up.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Mattintosh]

Or DIE as in a six-sided mechanical random number generation device.

Or DEAD as in 57005.

Re:I Like His Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuh-uh!

Re:I Like His Logic

[sjames]

That's funny. Every time I hear a very stereotypically "conservative" American talking about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed (or even injured) by some nebulous "terrorist" bogeyman-of-the-week.

Wisdom from the past:

One day, his students and he passed a grave where they saw a women weeping at a gravestone. She told Confucius that her husband, her husband's father, and her son were killed by a tiger. When Confucius asked her why she didn't leave such a fated spot, she answered that in this place there was no oppressive government.

Confucius said,"Remember this, my child. An oppressive government is fiercer and more feared than a tiger."

Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[Skyshadow]

I just got the EFF's "we're winning, now please donate more cash" spam and surfed over here to see if there were details. Scary how the two lined up so perfectly.

So yeah, if you have a few bucks, they could probably use it. I realize it's only our basic liberties, but let's be honest -- if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[Hoho19]

if by "waste" you mean consume until I stumble around so blindly drunk that I cannot reason then yes. :-D

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[Anonymous Coward]

you're just going to waste it on booze.

That depends... is it free as in speech or free as in beer? :-)

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[B11]

So if there's a dupe, do you donate to the EFF twice?

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[megaditto]

Why twice? He's already on the list, and two wrongs won't make it right.

Hopefully yall EFF contributors get to explain to a tribunal why you supported Terror.

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.

If you don't sell your three digit Slashdot ID at Ebay for highest bidder and donate the money to EFF, you're just going to waste your time on Slashdot.

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[flooey]

So if there's a dupe, do you donate to the EFF twice?

And drink!

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[RWarrior(fobw)]

if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.

too bad we can't waste it on girls.

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom isn't free. If you're lucky, freedom will only cost you money.

Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow

[TheRaven64]

if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.

Hmm. That gives me a problem. You see, if I donate money to the EFF then they might succeed in doing something about the decline in civil liberties and individual freedoms. If I spend the money on enough booze, however, then I definitely won't care if they don't succeed.

Hmm...

[Poromenos1]

"if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security."

Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!

Re:Hmm...

[Soko]

Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!

No, it's not like that. It's more like this:

"If you have been truthful to previous investigaters about your involvement in this, you won't mind us investigating your pal over here for any wrong-doing on his part."

The US Govt. tried to have the case against AT&T thrown out - not a case against itself. It's quite a diffrent matter.

Soko

Re:Hmm...

[theCat]

That would imply that judges have a sense of humor. And perhaps that they are not above cruel irony. Which, if true, speaks highly of the judiciary, in my opinion.

Re:Hmm...

[GigsVT]

Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!

Absolutely.

The government is supposed to be "surveilled" by the public. It is our responsibility to watch the government as closely as we can. It's not hypocritical to object to cameras on street corners but to lobby for cameras in police cars. They work for us, not the other way around.

Re:Hmm...

[Knara]

Most people haven't read a lot of judicial decisions, but it's no uncommon for them to have clever (if obfuscated) wording showing wit and distain for stupid plaintifs/defendants.

Re:Hmm...

[Tom]

No, actually as far as I read it (and IANAL, but I have some law experience) it's the judge's way to tell the government "you lie, and we know it." - as a judge you don't write stuff like "if the government has been truthful" if it's not to hint at something.

Re:Hmm...

[Phreakiture]

Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"?

No, not at all.

The "If you have nothing to hide..." canard is based on a presumption that random investigations, searches, seizures, and other bits of invasive behaviour should be the norm without probable cause.

This case has probable cause.

Re:Hmm...

[Rev Snow]

The Slashdot summary is misleading.

That quote is from the article;
it is not from the judge.

The word "scandal" does not appear
in the judge's opinion.

How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[kravlor]

I certainly look forward to seeing just how much the phone companies have been aiding the NSA. With the abuses leaked regarding the "terrorist surveillence program" related to international phone calls, the warrantless surveilance of American citizens certainly needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light of day.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[camt]

and then execute those responsible for the program for treason.

I do not think treason means what you think it means.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you consider the actaul act of surveillence an abuse, there have been no "abuses". No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[SlowMovingTarget]

Let me take your troll at face value for a moment... You want to execute those responsible for initiating a program intended to protect American citizens. And you call it "treason," how ironic. From Article Three of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. ... (Power of Congress paragraph ommitted)

By this definition, it is those giving the enemies of the U.S. "aid and comfort" that begin to meet that standard. Given that the wiretaps were specifically aimed at people who made calls to or received calls from known terrorist phone numbers, I think it shocking that the EFF is squandering money tilting at this windmill rather than amplifying their agenda against things like DRM. They've abandoned logic and the pursuit of important issues for a straight party-line political action. Shame on them for this.

WRT the subject, it seems you took the blue pill.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Tx]

Unless you consider the actaul act of surveillence an abuse, there have been no "abuses".

Most epople consider improperly authorized surveillance an abuse, I think you'll find.

No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.

I think you meant to say "No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused as far as I know." Big difference, and they might well not be in a position to be shouting about it.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[vought]

Let me take your troll at face value for a moment... You want to execute those responsible for initiating a program intended to protect American citizens.

I guess you believe everything the government tells you, hunh? I think it's quite remarkable you can divine intent from a statement made by people who also intended for everything to go well in Iraq, despite lack of a plan.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but given what the Nixon alumni in this administration have already proven that they are capable of, I think trusting their stated intent is a bit like trusting a bamboo pole and kit string on a deep-dea fishing trip.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[drinkypoo]

You want to execute those responsible for initiating a program intended to protect American citizens. And you call it "treason," how ironic

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

By this definition, it is those giving the enemies of the U.S. "aid and comfort" that begin to meet that standard.

The enemies of the constitution are enemies of the U.S. The constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure. QED.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[AuMatar]

Intended to protect American citizens? Bullshit. Its intended to increase the powers of the government, its precisely *against* the founding principles of the US.

Given that the wiretaps were specifically aimed at people who made calls to or received calls from known terrorist phone numbers

No, they weren't. If thats all they were aimed at, the government would get a *warrant* against them. You know, like they've done hundreds of times in the past. The government was data mining the phone records of the *entire nation* not of specific people.

On a side rant- known terrorists? Its been proven in a court of law? Or they confessed to it? No? Then they aren't known terrorist, they're *suspected* terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty.

Shame on them for this.

Shame on them? No, shame on you. Shame on you for throwing away our freedoms, shame on you for pissing all over the Constitution. And shame on the rest of America for letting sheep like you throw away what generations have fought and died for.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Penguinshit]

Certain portions of the mis-named Patriot Act make it illegal to shout about it.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[gordo3000]

you're off. the nsa taps were not aimed at known terrorist phone numbers. They were aimed at phones that made frequent calls to countries with known terrorist ties(namely, anywhere in the middle east). The data as to who was being called and where the calls were coming from was being used in order to narrow down possible terrorists. If they were known terrorist phone numbers, the wiretaps could begin immediately and concurrently, the administration could request clearance through FISA and the special court set up to hear these things. The interesting thing is, all the government needs to do is give a very limited reason as to why the taps are needed.

If they knew the phone numbers belonged to terrorists, it wouldn't be a problem to get a warrant for a wire tap. So to say the warrantless wiretaps were required for security is only meaningful if the government was partaking in broad based surveilance of anyone who made any contact with person's from the middle east.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy the idea that the program is actually intended to protect Americans. Tapping all of our phones creates a mountain of irrelevant information. It distracts our law enforcement agencies from doing meaningful investigative work into real threats. In fact, the FBI has repeatedly said that the "leads" generated by these surveillance programs were false and wasted time. And remember that this program started before 9/11 and it certainly didn't stop that attack.

That said, I agree that this is not treason. It's a violation of the Bill of Rights (specifically the Fourth Amendment which requires a warrant for any search). For violations of said Bill of Rights capital punishment should be an option; there is NO crime more serious than undermining our Constitution.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[flooey]

No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.

Yeah, I mean it's not like they've been using it to discover reporter's confidential sources or anything.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[jrobinson5]

"The constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure."

No, the Bill of Rights protects us from unlawful search and seizure.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[drinkypoo]

"The constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure."

No, the Bill of Rights protects us from unlawful search and seizure.

Engage in pedantry much? Let's run this down; the bill of rights is a set of amendments to the constitution. As amendments, they are incapable of functioning on their own. Thus, they are part of the constitution (look up amend in the dictionary if you still don't get it) and well, this whole conversation was pointless and stupid. Especially on your side.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[jrobinson5]

Sorry, my bad.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[mathwhiz99atucb]

Yes, the Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, so are the rest of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (as was the 27th Amendment, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendm ent_to_the_United_States_Constitution). But by Article V of the Constitution:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

In other words, since the Bill of Rights (and specifically the Fourth Amendment) was proposed by Congress, passed both houses with thr requisite supermajority and was ratified by a sufficient number of the legislatures of the states, it is valid "for all intents and purposes" as part of the Constitution -- i.e. it is the same as if it were written into the original language of the document in 1787.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[shawb]

Definition 1)The betrayal of a trust.

Also, I believe purposely deconstruction the public scrutiny of your actions as well as checks and balances of the three arms of government could be construed as an attempt to overthrow an open government, the definition you gave did not explicity require a violent overthrow, but did give it as an EXAMPLE of treason.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[shawb]

I don't think that's a fair comparison... I've actually seen fish caught on a bamboo pole.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[shawb]

So to say the warrantless wiretaps were required for security is only meaningful if the government was partaking in broad based surveilance of anyone who made any contact with person's from the middle east.

And how do we know that wasn't what the NSA was doing? We may yet find out that is what happened, as the judge let the case go through. Remember government officials: if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind the public oversight.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Tweekster]

Protect americans hardly.

They are going directly against the protection of people from their government.

THey are going directly against the spirit and literal writing of the constitution to gain more power.

That is treasonous of the American PEOPLE (you know, those unimportant people that give the government their power)

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[EllisDees]

>Let me take your troll at face value for a moment... You want to execute those responsible for initiating a program intended to protect American citizens.

Prove it. All you have are the assurances of the executive branch, a group of known liars, that any of this is about protecting American citizens.

>By this definition, it is those giving the enemies of the U.S. "aid and comfort" that begin to meet that standard.Given that the wiretaps were specifically aimed at people who made calls to or received calls from known terrorist phone numbers,

Once again, prove it. If they were only targetted at terrorists, they could have gone through the FISA courts for their rubber stamp. They didn't. That tells us something about the legitimacy of their claims to be only tapping "enemies".

>They've abandoned logic and the pursuit of important issues for a straight party-line political action. Shame on them for this.

In case you missed it, there are plenty of people on the conservative side of the spectrum who disagree with this illegal domestic spying program.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[heinousjay]

Definition 1)The betrayal of a trust.

Great, then I can start executing people who've lied to me in the past. Thanks for your super insightful legal knowledge!

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

However, in the US, treason is legally defined in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Anthony Boyd]

Shame on them? No, shame on you. Shame on you for throwing away our freedoms, shame on you for pissing all over the Constitution. And shame on the rest of America for letting sheep like you throw away what generations have fought and died for.

My God. Your post makes me want to weep. Partly because I'm just so thrilled to see someone stand up for the Constitution is such stark terms. But partly because it's completely sad to think that a post like yours is rare enough to evoke such a reaction. :(

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[grcumb]

"I am no conspiracy theorist, but given what the Nixon alumni in this administration have already proven that they are capable of, I think trusting their stated intent is a bit like trusting a bamboo pole and kit string on a deep-dea fishing trip."

No, it's more like trusting a bear with the contents of your picnic basket.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>there have been no "abuses".

And you know this how, precisely?

Would we know if a rogue NSA employee were blackmailing people? It would hardly be blackmail if the victim were willing to talk about it in public.

Would we know if an NSA employee had a run of surprisingly prescient stock trades?

Would we know if they were bugging the Democratic Party? It's possible, after all it's happened before.

Certainly not without oversight, and maybe not even with oversight. The mass wiretapping program is unacceptable because it is unaccountable (in addition to being useless for or harmful to national security and a violation of the Constitution that our president swore to uphold).

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[AVryhof]

I never have mod points when I need them.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no. Suspected terrorists are "enemy combatants." As enemy combatants, the US can do whatever they want with them because they have no rights. If they want to, they can pretend to give them a trial so they can pretend to defend themselves. But they can make the terrorists wait years before they get their trial.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[WilliamSChips]

It's the U SAP AT RIOT act, not the USA PATRIOT act. I know, it's easy to mix them up.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Weirsbaski]

> No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.

Pretty bold statement, for somebody who has absolutely no way of knowing whether it's true or not...

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[geminidomino]

"No honey, even if the bear IS wearing a hat, collar and tie, but no shirt, it isn't safe for you to give him your skittles..."

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[geminidomino]

As enemy combatants, the US can do whatever they want with them because they have no rights.

It looks like they might actually be fixing this one. One step in the right direction after six years running full tilt in the wrong one, but I'll take what I can get at this point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

Of course, according to the story, Frist is going to try to pass a law that says essentially the same thing. Why he doesn't think it'll be just as spanked by the SC is beyond me.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[mrchaotica]

mis-named Patriot Act

It's not mis-named; the Ministry of Truth named it that on purpose!

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[TubeSteak]

On a side rant- known terrorists? Its been proven in a court of law? Or they confessed to it? No? Then they aren't known terrorist, they're *suspected* terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty.

"innocent until proven guilty" is merely a statement of fact which extends from the legal requirement that the State proves your guilt.

It does not mean that you are innocent.

The law does not look at you and think "Oh my! This man is innocent!"

Quite the opposite: You are treated as guilty from the moment you are a suspect, much less an arrestee. The law looks at you and says "this man has not *yet* been proven guilty".

Suspects are just people you *think* might have done something.

When they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you (or terrorists/mafia/gang/etc members) are guilty, they put you down in a file as a "known" criminal.

If we replace "terrorist" with "drug dealers" would it make more sense to you?
1. the authority 'suspects' that someone is a drug dealer
2. with enough proof, they 'know' that person is a drug dealer
3. then they usually have to gather more proof to 'convict' the person of drug dealing.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[TheRaven64]

levying War against them,

Would orchestrating a war in which American citizens lost their lives against an enemy who was not a threat to the US count?

or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Would arranging for members of the Bin Laden family to be flown out of the country during the no-fly period following the September 11 attacks count here?

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[cgreentx]

Intended to protect American citizens? Bullshit. Its intended to increase the powers of the government, its precisely *against* the founding principles of the US.

Everything our government does today is a bastardization of the government our founding fathers created. The roles defined in the constitution are the only ones that our federal government was intended to fill. Any further rights were to be handled through amendments approved by the states, where the real government power was intended to be.

Liberals (a.k.a. Federalist) believed in a strong federal government while Republicans believed in the true constitutional government in which the Federal government was always trumped by state and individual rights. Unfortunately the Federalists managed to get their way and the Federal government became extremely powerful taking away most of the rights of the states and individuals. Somewhere along the way the Republicans seemed to have accepted this and have begun a crusade to take away further rights. This is sad since a Republican in the true sense of the word would be more about protecting us from the federal government than a Federalist would be.

Every administration (Republican and Democrat) for over a hundred years has violated our core rights, and the law, in order to protect us. I don't see an end to this cycle, and the courts are typically not standing up for us. To see a federal judge slap the government in the few cases like this where it does happen are the silver lining that we should see more often. Unfortunately this is the exception and not the rule.

Chris Green

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[cfuse]

On a side rant- known terrorists? Its been proven in a court of law? Or they confessed to it? No? Then they aren't known terrorist, they're *suspected* terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty.

I can understand his confusion - given that the government of the day has run Gitmo and its like, freely tortures people, thinks that the Geneva convention only applies in Geneva, lies (badly) to it's people and the world, spies (badly) on it's people, invades other countries on the strength of false intelligence, etc..

The American government has no concept of justice, honesty or accountability. And the American people just don't care. The word 'revolting' doesn't even begin to cover it.

America, as it stands, is disgusting.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[AuMatar]

And the government suspecting you're doing something doesn't mean you are guilty either. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a drug dealer, he's not a known drug dealer- he's a suspected drug dealer. Claiming someone is "known" to be something that you cannot prove they are is dishonest at best, fraud at worst. THe government throws the term "known" around in order to trick people into thinking its ok to violate their rights. Don't be taken in by it.

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[Penguinshit]

Isn't that Ministry of Truthiness ?

Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Would arranging for members of the Bin Laden family to be flown out of the country during the no-fly period following the September 11 attacks count here?

Is Wikipedia wrong then that they didn't fly out until the FAA lifted the ban on overseas flights?

A First in History

[ToAllPointsWest]

AFAIK, the government has always gotten "national security" cases such as this thrown out of court, this change represents a very good historical first! The Right of Petition is still alive in the US!!!!

Re:A First in History

[plasmacutter]

nope.. what about the time magaizne case?

still.. in this age, which has been described as "worse than watergate", it is a small.. thin ray of hope that we might yet claw our way back from the brink of totalitarianism.

Re:A First in History

[erroneus]

Yes, the judiciary at large is getting pretty annoyed at the way the other two [executive and legislative] are behaving. It is time that our checks and balances started to work for us. It is no mystery that Bush's supreme court nominees were pushed so hard and that their confirmation was so wildly fought. In the end, Bush's congressional and senate majorities confirmed them. But even now I get the feeling that some of Bush's judges will start to think for themselves.

Quite a Surprise

[BigCheese]

I expected the yes men to have buried this long ago.

Is the US justice system working? We'll have to wait and see...

Re:Quite a Surprise

[Valdrax]

Is the US justice system working? We'll have to wait and see...

I had actually fallen into a sort of pessimistic mindset about the future of the Constitution and democracy in America, but the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfield has given me great relief that our system of checks and balances is still capable of fighting back, even if weakened.

Now that the case is proceding, I have high hopes that this nation is on the road to recovery from the post-9/11 madness.

Re:Quite a Surprise

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Same here. When I navigated to Slashdot and saw this headline on the page, I jumped out of my seat and yelled "YES!!!" as though someone had just given me a million dollars. Frankly, I fully expected the judge to throw out the case and I have been sitting here for weeks thinking to myself that this country is completely screwed and wondering what I could do about it.

This is such great news and it gives me a sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe we aren't on the road to complete totalitarianism that I thought we were. Maybe we have a future after all.

By the way, I don't recommend sitting in one spot for weeks; it makes things smell bad [grin].

The balance begins to reassert itself.

[N. Vander Ende]

It's nice to see the intended balance of power in our government begin to stabilize once more. When one or more sides start to get out of hand, the other side steps in! Sort of like rock-paper-scissors, but C-SPAN covers the matches. I eagerly await the incensed cries of "activist judges!"

Re:The balance begins to reassert itself.

[ScrewMaster]

I eagerly await the incensed cries of "activist judges!

Yeah, no kidding. Seriously though, an activist judge is usually one that wants to set new precedent according to his own convictions, whereas this judge is attempting to uphold existing law ... you know, the Constitution. It sure would be nice to get back to a state of affairs where the government is transparent and scared shitless of us.

I'm dreaming, I know.

Re:The balance begins to reassert itself.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I suspect you'll be waiting a long time, save for one or two idiots who may not understand what an 'activist judge' is. In this case, the judge [rightly] blocked intervention of an entity that had no business being involved. This has nothing to do with activism on the bench.

Here's a good link with some differing viewpoints on what an activist judge is/does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_judge#Robert s.2FFrankfurter.2FHarlan_View

no subject

[UnixSphere]

As a consumer, I'm ready to look at these list of companies and effectively not do any business with them anymore. I certainly hope I can convince others close to me to do the same. Your dollar is stronger than your bitching to these companies, stick it to them.

Judicial branch doing it's job

[shuz]

It is nice to see the Judicial branch keep the Executive branch in check. What's even nicer is that the lower court will have the power to see if the Executive branch has been telling the truth without going to the supreme court. As a US citizen I am comforted by this news.

Re:Judicial branch doing it's job

[loraksus]

Don't worry, presidential pardons are around the corner...

Re:Judicial branch doing it's job

[Reverend528]

Don't worry, presidential pardons are around the corner...

Not if the EFF is smart and goes for the death penalty.

Re:Judicial branch doing it's job

[Zathrus]

Don't worry, presidential pardons are around the corner...

Yes, but the president cannot pardon himself.

Of course, it's unclear that he's broken any law; even if it's found to be unconstitutional and circumvents FISA, then it's unclear that anything could be done about it. By the time it's resolved it will be well past 2008, and there's no method for impeaching a President who is no longer in office (and there's not much else that you could do).

Violating the public trust is not illegal, as countless politicians of all parties have repeatedly shown (elected and unelected, including Karl Rove).

To date Bush, et. al. haven't said anything about this under oath. Rove apparantly lied to Scott McClellan, but told the truth where it counted legally -- to the special prosecutor.

Re:Judicial branch doing it's job

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Nah - it would cost the president quite alot of political capital to use the pardon for something like this.

So yes, he may use it - at the price of the Republican party ever having a majority for the next 10 years.

Re:Judicial branch doing it's job

[number11]

Of course, it's unclear that he's broken any law; even if it's found to be unconstitutional and circumvents FISA, then it's unclear that anything could be done about it.

Well, I'd agree that not anything is likely to be done, most prosecutors are too gutless to insist that high elected officials have to obey the laws. But do note that there are criminal penalties (5 years in jail) for violating FISA. And I think inducing someone else to commit a felony is probably a crime in its own right.

Btw...

[Bishibosh]

btw, wtf is eff?

Re:Btw...

[sbakker]

From www.eff.org ... EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights.

Re:Btw...

[fohat]

IANAL and didn't RTFA, but AFAICT the EFF stands for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

YES!

[TheDarkener]

A win for those who dislike governments breaking their own laws!

*does a little dance*

*realises that we still have a LONG way to go*

*frowns*

no career ambitions

[rolyatknarf]

So we have a judge that tells the government to sit down and shut the fuck up. Guess he has already decided that he is at the end of his career. I hope he has a retirement cabin on a peaceful lake paid for.

Re:no career ambitions

[bersl2]

Federal judges sit until resignation, death, or impeachment and conviction by the Senate, for this very reason.

Re:no career ambitions

[Maelwryth]

If you were pulling the strings, which would you want more?

A) The judge to quash the well publicised case, possibly causing an uproar.

B) The judge to allow the case. Drag the case out over a year or two. Make the EFF spend a shitload of money, and then have the defendant win.

Besides, the NSA are still sitting pretty. It's AT&T that's being sued, not them.

Re:no career ambitions

[Zathrus]

True, however if you were to assume that the current political power balance was to continue then the judge could kiss any hopes of moving to the Supreme Court goodbye.

And since he was appointed by Reagan in 1985 to Federal District court, and George H.W. Bush to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1989, I'm going to guess that he's not a left-leaning judge (I couldn't determine for certain). He's currently Chief Justice for that court, and so the only place up at this point is the SCOTUS (or maybe a specialized court like FISA, but that's more of a sideways move at best).

So odds are that, yes, this could be considered a "career limiting" move. But that's like saying that Larry Ellison has pissed off Microsoft so much he's not going to become CEO there... there's really not much "up" left.

Re:no career ambitions

[bigtrike]

Federal judges sit until resignation, death, or impeachment and conviction by the Senate, for this very reason.

This administration has already proven that it will do anything to individuals who get in its way.

Re:no career ambitions

[Fear the Clam]

Not all federal judges. Bankruptcy judges sit 14-year terms. They can renew if they want, but they still have to fill out some forms.

Re:no career ambitions

[Dun Malg]

True, however if you were to assume that the current political power balance was to continue then the judge could kiss any hopes of moving to the Supreme Court goodbye.

There are over 800 federal judges. SCOTUS has a vacancy maybe once every 5-10 years. The vast majority of federal judges have absolutely no expectation whatsoever of nomination to the supreme court.

Re:no career ambitions

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Besides, the NSA are still sitting pretty. It's AT&T that's being sued, not them.

Hehe. That is, unless AT&T is found guilty of wrongdoing.

That would open up a very interesting can of worms.

Re:no career ambitions

[Maelwryth]

The can of worms is already open. There is nothing the current administration will do about the NSA. There is nothing they can do without admitting guilt.

Re:no career ambitions

[Brandybuck]

WTF? Please examine the ratio of judges to Supreme Court nominations. You're stark raving loopy if you think judges take the odds of a SCOTUS nomination into their career plans.

Re:no career ambitions

[mrchaotica]

True, but a judge could still have aspirations of being appointed to the Supreme Court or something, in which case he could still be manipulated even though he can't technically be "harmed."

I'm stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm stupid.

I don't understand how invading a country protects my freedom. Or how, terrorists threaten my freedom. They can blow shit up all they want, but I still have freedom of speech and religion. Or how by violating our civil rights, our Government protects our freedom. How is this true??

The only threat to my freedom has been my own Government. They are the ones (and unfortunately, the majority is letting them) who are trying to restrict the freedom of the press with their lawsuits over leaks. They are the ones who are violating citizens rights by spying on them.

This case is protecting our rights and fredoms that, let's see, were violated by our Government.

I'd rather live free and live with the vry remote possiblity of dying in a terrorist attach than having my Government take my rights away to protect my Freedom!

I've been voting and writing letters, but, unfortunately, the cowards run the show.

Re:I'm stupid

[drinkypoo]

I'm stupid (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on 07-20-06 14:59 (#15752993)

[...]

I've been voting and writing letters, but, unfortunately, the cowards run the show.

Irony, thy name is slashdot.

Re:I'm stupid

[mirio]

AC, you are right on the mark.

When people talk about freedom (real freedom, not the politician's word), what are they talking about? FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT.

Governments are to be feared. The natural tendency of any government to expand it's power over it's people must be continuously fought.

Re:I'm stupid

[smellsofbikes]

They are decreasing our freedom TO do things, which they falsely imply increases our freedom FROM other things. By keeping people scared, they get votes.

I too have been writing letters. Keep them up. People like us have managed to stop bad government before: maybe we'll win this time, too.

Re:I'm stupid

[Lord Ender]

I don't understand how ... terrorists threaten my freedom. They can blow shit up all they want, but I still have freedom of speech and religion.

Terrorists threaten your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or at least the "life" part. That's the reasoning. They also threaten your freedom of speech with that "don't draw Allah or we'll riot!" stuff.

You may not think giving up one right (privacy) to decrease your chances of losing another right (life) is a fair trade. But some people do, and that is the reasoning used to justify it. It isn't even totally unreasonable: at least some terrorist attacks have been stopped thanks (in part) to domestic spying.

Re:I'm stupid

[Saeger]

I'd rather live free and live with the vry remote possiblity of dying in a terrorist attach than having my Government take my rights away to protect my Freedom!

Haven't you been watching 24? You need to get a proper dose of conditioning.

Government heros like Jack Bauer NEED total information awareness, and they need the authority to shoot then decapitate your uncle in order to save us all from a nuke. A NUKE!!! Ahhhgg! You're panicked too, right?!

The exception is the rule. 24/7. :)

Re:I'm stupid

[ClamIAm]

When people talk about freedom (real freedom, not the politician's word), what are they talking about? FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT.

I disagree. When I think of "freedom", I think of "freedom from oppression". While it is true that governments are, at times, a source of oppression, there are other times when they help get rid of oppression. World War II and the US Civil Rights movement are two examples where governments helped reduce oppression.

Now one could argue that in both of these examples, governments were also the ones doing the oppression. The Nazi party controlled the government of Germany. Jim Crow laws were enforced by various US governmental bodies. But this misses my point, which is the fact that governments are not always the source of oppression.

And I completely agree that there must always be a stuggle to maintain freedom. However, this struggle is not against a mythical, evil "government", and the same stuggle would exist even in an anarcho-utopia-land. It is the struggle against those who hold power over others. When people do not hold power over others, real freedom can exist.

Re:I'm stupid

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The new version of that famous quote from Vietnam is
"We had to destroy freedom in order to save it".

Re:I'm stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Good sentiment. But it's too bad you'll shut the fuck up just as soon as a Democrat gets in office.

I'm not a Republican, just someone old enough to remember his history. Liberals only bitch about the government when a conservative Republican is in office. How did sending troops to Somalia and Bosnia protect my freedom? How did bombing an aspirin factory in Libya or the night shift in Iraq defend my civil rights? Or more on topic, where was the concern about warrantless wiretaps back then?

I have no idea if you are a liberal or not, but I do feel safe wagering that all this hand-wringing over the ever-expanding scope of government power will cease once a Democrat takes up residence in the White House. Where were you when government power was expanding during the 70s 80s and 90s? Don't give me that shit that you were too young, because SOMEONE besides me must have been inhabiting this planet.

Re:I'm stupid

[Unlikely_Hero]

why do the speaches of V from V For Vendetta keep coming to mind?
Does anyone else get the feeling that this may take some sort of rebellion?

Re:I'm stupid

[Brandybuck]

The fact remains that no weak government has ever been oppressive. The problem is not whether governments are "good" or "evil", but whether they are too strong to be reigned in by their people. Case in point, the last dozen years. While Clinton was in office, not one liberal challenged the increase in the scope of the federal government. But once Bush got in office, suddenly they all freaked out in realization that government had too much power, and too much of it was centralized in the federal government. Well duh!

Re:I'm stupid

[mrchaotica]

there are other times when [governments] help get rid of oppression.

Yeah, but this isn't one of those times!

Re:I'm stupid

[mrchaotica]

Terrorists threaten your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or at least the "life" part. That's the reasoning. They also threaten your freedom of speech with that "don't draw Allah or we'll riot!" stuff.

That's not "reasoning," that's bullshit.

First of all, everyone's right to liberty is more important than a few people's right to life. Even if ten more World Trade Centers got blown up, it would still be an acceptable loss to trade for everyone else's freedom! And yes, that does include if I were one of those people killed.

Second, the "don't draw Allah or we'll riot" bit is irrelevant. They're doing all their rioting in their country; we can "dis" their religion all we want here and they can't do jack-shit about it!

Look, here's the bottom line: if you're such a coward that you'd give up your essential freedom for a little temporary safety (as ol' Ben would say), get the fuck out and leave the U.S for the real patriots! Go move to Afghanistan; you'll be happier there.

Re:I'm stupid

[Gnavpot]

Second, the "don't draw Allah or we'll riot" bit is irrelevant. They're doing all their rioting in their country; we can "dis" their religion all we want here and they can't do jack-shit about it!

I agree entirely with the "I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have the government take away everybody's freedom" part.

I also agree with the GP about some islamists trying to take away our freedom of speech. They are using murder, death threaths and violent attacks to reach that goal, and they are succeeding. See examples below.

However, please note that there is no connection between the two, so you can actually fight both at the same time. Western governments use their freedom oppressing powers to look for terrorist attacks against the general public, not for protecting individuals who are in danger after having used their freedom of speech. Examples of islamists oppressing freedom in our part of the world:

UK, Salman Rushdie:
"He is best known for the violent criticism his book The Satanic Verses (1988) provoked in the Muslim community. After death threats and a fatwa by Ruhollah Khomeini, calling for his assassination, he spent years underground."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

Holland, Theo van Gogh (after using his free speech to critisize Islam):
"Mohammed Bouyeri murdered van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat streets. He shot him with eight bullets from a HS2000 (a handgun produced in 2000 in Croatia), and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri slit van Gogh's throat and then stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contains references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_d irector)

Holland, Hirsi Ali:
"Hirsi Ali has had to maintain a high level of security due to threats against her life for voicing views critical of certain aspects of Islam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Denmark, 12 cartoonists (after depicting Muhammad):
"Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible for the cartoons have been made,[47] resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muham mad_cartoons_controversy#Economic_and_human_costs

Denmark, a lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute:
"In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture."
http://www.ludd.net/retort/msg00556.html

Re:I'm stupid

[glsunder]

Governments need to be strong enough to keep others from oppressing its citizens, but weak enough that it doesn't become the oppressor.

Re:I'm stupid

[ClamIAm]

If a government is too weak to be oppresive, another group will rise to fill the gap.

Re:I'm stupid

[Brandybuck]

In theory, yes. But in practice it has never happened. A group might rise to take over the government, but then it would be the government itself that is filling the gap. Every instance of oppression in history had a government behind it, either as the oppressors or as active accomplices to the oppressors. Despite Hollywood movie plots to the contrary, there has never been an instance of big business enslaving, subjugating or terrorizing a group of people without first getting active support or special privileges from the government.

Re:I'm stupid

[ClamIAm]

Every instance of oppression in history had a government behind it

Bullshit. Prove that your assertions are correct. Unless you're prepared to track down every instance of "oppression" in history, there is no way you can make that assertion.

And cut the crap about "ooh government is evil". There is nothing special about governments. They are simply organizations made up of people, much the same as any "private" organization. Your neat little worldview in which "government == evil" is no more sane than any other fundamentalist worldview. In other words, it's bullshit.

The Audacity! (was:Quite a Surprise)

[Anonymous Coward]

I expected the yes men to have buried this long ago. Is the US justice system working? We'll have to wait and see...

I am just waiting to see how much longer this judge would last, for having the audacity to rule against the federal government...

More like...

[jd]

"If you've not commited any crimes with your friend, you won't have anything to worry about if I ask your friend if he's commited any crimes with you", which does reduce to the grandparent post's phrasing. Basically, the judge is daring the Government to either let the case through (and risk disclosure) -or- be found guilty of lying.

Since the Government isn't a defendent, and as the US has no meaningful concept of "contempt of court" or perjury, the court can't do anything about it if the Government is found guilty of lying. On the other hand, this is election year, which is not a good year to be found guilty of anything, even if there is nothing the courts can do.

My guess is that the Government will do anything and everything to stall proceedings, such that if there is a trial, there's absolutely no risk of anything embarassing being said before polling day. If they're in power, they can clean things up afterwards. If they're not, it's no longer their problem.

Re:More like...

[AuMatar]

Of course, the republicans have set a nice precedent of impeachment proceedings for perjury by the executive branch...

Re:More like...

[killjoe]

In order for impeachment to happen you need a congress which cares more about the constitution and America then they do about their party and the next election. Either that or you need a congress that is run by the opposing party.

We have neither in this case so there will not be any impeachment even though a stronger case can be made for Bush then Clinton.

Re:More like...

[StikyPad]

Because the republicans are likely to impeach Bush? And before you talk about the dems pulling a majority congress out of their collective derriers in '06, you should be aware that it takes a supermajority to convict.

You also seem to forget that Clinton was aquitted.

Re:More like...

[AuMatar]

Lets see how the elections go. I think the dems are going to take the majority. A supermajority will be harder, but you never know.

Re:More like...

[DanTheLewis]

It wasn't perjury, remember. It was thoroughly vetted lawyer talk, and it was slimy, but Clinton never broke that law.

Re:More like...

[Aadain2001]

I love all faith in the Democratic party to lead anything. We have too many different groups, each with their own agenda. The best analogy would trying to herd a bunch of cats.

The Republicans on the other hand are much more guided and on the same page with each other. You have two main groups, the social conservatives (right-wing religious types) and the fiscal conservatives. It's much easier to get the Republican base out in force to vote the same issues up and down than it is to get the Dems out to do the same.

I doubt we will see a Democratic majority for a while. The Republican may have made some major mistakes (and many illegal ones at that), but the general public still sees them as more able to lead than the Democrats. We will just have to wait for them to commit such a horrible crime that even the most staunch conservative can no longer stand to see them in power. We are almost there, but not yet.

Re:More like...

[Ambassador Kosh]

Are you sure there are fiscal conservative republicans in office. Based on the spending I find that REALLY hard to believe. Mostly what I see in office are the same groups of people with two different names. I don't think there are any democrats or republicans in office right now and there have not been for a good long while. A real liberal government I could deal with, I could also deal with an actual conservative government. However it seems right now the people we have in government are neither. They are there for their own personal power and money. It sure seems they stomp on states rights a good deal, spend more money then they have and they both love to "save the children" while taking away more rights.

It just seems that the democrats bring up some issues since that is their talking points but both sides vote to pass them. The republicans bring up other talking points and both vote on them also. The reason there are two "sides" is to make people think there is a difference between them. That way you can say you are voting for the "better" side. I don't see how liberals or conservatives can back pretty much anyone in office right now.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is just sending things downhill all you are changing is how fast we are falling. Next time vote for whoever you think will do the best job no matter what their chances are. I am not advocating voting for green, democrat, republican, or whatever other parties there might be. For each position look at all your choices and decide which person you think would honestly do the best job no matter what their chances of winning are. Anything less is how we got into this situation in the first place.

Re:More like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's still Ron Paul, but calling one guy a group is a bit much...

Re:More like...

[Anonymous Coward]

The republicans (or democrats) wouldn't impeach one of their own no matter what the crime.

And why should they? No matter how bad things were to get, the people won't revolt. We could have election fraud, killing of political opposition, whatever -- the US population will not revolt.

Re:More like...

[AuMatar]

The thing is that the Democratic party isn't really a party. Neither is the republican party. Both are coalitions. In the republicans, you have the Rich People party, and a few groups they occasionally throw a bone to to keep them in line (Christian party, southern racist party, etc). In the Democrats you have... everyone else. When you look at them as permanent coalitions rather than real parties it makes a lot more sense. The difference is the republicans have a strong party pulling all the strings (the rich people party). The democrats don't.

My guess would be...

[jd]

...that said log cabin is in a neutral country and is sufficiently concealed by trees as to not appear on Microsoft's or Google's satellite photos.

One step closer

[imemyself]

Hell yeah! At the very least this shows that the Bush administration can't arbitrarily say "national security" to cover up things that they've done that may not be entirely legal. With this, and the stuff about San Francisco and AT&T, its nice to know that AT&T might actually get in some trouble/lose some money because of what they've done. Maybe they should change their advertising slogan to Your World, Delivered...To The NSA.

Re:One step closer

[Anonymous Coward]

that slogan would be great if EFF didn't have it displayed on their page for the last 3 months...

Re:One step closer

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't mean "the Bush administration can't arbitrarily say 'national security' to cover up things..." It means that sometimes the process of covering things up when they arbitrarily claim "national security" will hit a minor bump in the road before the liberal, terrorist, activist judges who want to the terrorists to win are overruled, worked around, or simply ignored.

The administration can and will continue to claim anything it feels like. Doing anything about that requires backbone from two branches of government, but the judicial branch has been packed with people who really honestly believe the founders accidentally wrote "President" in the Constitution when they meant "Emporer," and for its part the legislative branch agrees.

There's nothing to do about the judicial branch but hope that fewer authoritarian assholes are "elected" to the executive branch (so as to stem the influx of these gourds) -- and then wait thirty years for 'em to die off. Then in the meantime hope the congressional districts aren't too badly gerrymandered to make it impossible to kick the cryptofascist administration lapdogs out on their butts when they're up for "election."

Suffice it to say, I'm not holding my breath. Backbone in the other two branches depends on the public deciding that the administration's behavior is bad, but a majority of folks think it's just dandy to indefinitely detail people without trial on the President's word, to exclude laws from judicial review, data-mine our phones and Internet communications, and do absolutely anything at all as long as someone makes vague noises that it "protects our freedom from terrorists," or some other newspeak bullshit.

"You don't want the terrorists to win do you?"

Have a nice day.

Re:One step closer

[symbolic]

It certainly wouldn't hurt if this resulted in much-needed spanking for Bush as well.

sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it so sad or what that it is in fact the two elected branches of government that are running the country into the ground while the other one with its appointments and life terms is the only thing standing in their way? I'm beginning to think people are really that stupid.

Re:sad

[shawb]

Oh sweet mod points, where are you now?

Re:sad

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Holy crap that's a scary thought..

Re:sad

[suffe]

Think? People are stupid. In fact, it should be ranked up there with the 'law of gravity'. You have quite an important point though. One that people should take note of. Balance in everything, even in 'democracy'.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner"

Your sig

[Reality Master 201]

For the word you intend, the proper spelling is "principle."
FWIW, I'm an awful speller, too.

Re:Your sig

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I wish that ppl would think about this before posting such things. First the NSA does not involve itself with manipulating others. All they do is monitor, as well as work on securing our (USA) communications and systems.

Terrorism is literally the act of carrying out actions that cause people to fear for their safety or well being.

From my own perspective, I would consider the Chilling Effect to be a form of terrorism. I sometimes wonder if people will be 'disappeared' for being a little too outspoken about how the government conducts its business. Secret government agencies don't seem to be the hallmark of a 'free' country.

But maybe that's just me, and your opinion may differ.

Re:Your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing a bunch of Linux nerds all gathered together for a convention causes me to fear for my safety and well being, but I still don't call them terrorists.

Re:Your sig

[WindBourne]

Yes, but bill, we are not going to impact your bottom line since you said that you were going to give it all away anyways.

Re:Some degree of balance

[rolyatknarf]

"as long as its used for national defense and national defense only".........I believe that - and in the Tooth Fairy.

Re:Some degree of balance

[inviolet]

Unfortunately, we will never know whether (and how often) the NSA's programs did indeed prevent attacks like 09/11.

It puts is civilians in the impossible position of having to judge the need for, and effectiveness of, secret programs aimed at secretive enemies.

And the hell of it is, the president himself has to lie to us. Imagine that you are the prez, and you receive some touchy classified information that says somebody is getting ready to body-slam us. You've got to convince America that we've got to act pre-emptively... but, you can't say how you know, or what all the real reasons are. What the hell would you do?

You'd have to construct a completely false but good-sounding premise for an action which is, in fact, completely honorable and justified.

I'm no fan of the current administration, but I'm forced to allow them the possibility that they've been put in that exact situation.

rock-paper-scissors... matches?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sort of like rock-paper-scissors, but C-SPAN covers the matches.

Not like anybody will see this as AC, but I couldn't resist, anyway...

Rock-paper-scissors? C-Span covers matches? Where'd either of /them/ come from? Isn't it supposed to be paper covers rock? Sure, matches would burn paper, but they aren't supposed to be one of the choices!

I do agree with the sentiment, however. It's about time! Seeing the way things were going, the days after election 2004 were some of the most depressing I've ever had, so it's nice to see things righting (um...centering) themselves a bit.

Duncan

I can't afford to give this year...

[FatSean]

...But I do wear my EFF T-shirt as often as possible when I go out in public. Which does actually happen!

Maybe next year.

Re:I can't afford to give this year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, unless FatSean is a pseudonym for "hot chick," I'm not sure that's really doing a whole lot of good.

Or if Congress...

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal judges sit until resignation, death, or impeachment and conviction by the Senate

Or if Congress effectively eliminates their office via judicial redistricting, but the judge still gets compensated for life and cannot have his pay reduced, even if his district gets reduced to a 1/2 square mile portion of rural area in the region when a new district gets effectively overlaid of where he formerly reigned.

Moved from AT&T to Packet8

[losttoy]

I already moved from AT&T to Packet8 VoIP service. Not only am I saving money but also taking away business from AT&T. Keep up the sniffing AT&T - soon you won't have any customer traffic to sniff!!

Re:Some degree of balance

[vertinox]

Funny... If you replaced your words with another famous "uhampered" security group we all know of we get something like this:

Personally I think we should let the Gestopo do its job. When Gestopo data starts being used to find Christian Democrats and Socialists we've got a problem, but as long as its used for national defense and national defense only I personally think its a good idea to let them do there job unhampered. Imagine if the Reichstag fire had been prevented by such a program? When I say national defense I mean attacks like Reichstag fire, Soviet invasions, etc. things killing hundreds or thousands of people.

Ironically, unhampered security groups do lead to invasions and killing of hundred of thousands of people. Personally I don't think that the NSA is even remotly comparable to the Gestopo, but what if in 20 years a power hungry psycho uses the massive amount of power we let the NSA have today to declare a defacto dictatorship?

If we make the Presidency so powerful and unhampered as well as its agencies then corrupt evil people desiring power will seek this position. We must keep the Presidents and security groups in check so that this never happens.

Re:Some degree of balance

[DragonTHC]

I was perusing the cable channels last night and came across a senate hearing on C-SPAN2

Kim Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies, was giving testimony to the US Senate about the NSA and the Global Communications network

He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that it was no longer feasible for the NSA to ensure that they didn't listen to the communications of american citizens without some sort of in-depth investigation to determine if the people they were listening to were in fact american citizens.

while it's not a dragnet, it is the mass listening on all global communications. Certain things trip the filters. like arab language. and using high value words such as bomb and al qaeda in the same conversation. this will undoubtedly trip the filters and some NSA analyst will have a chuckle over reading this post on slashdot. but before that happens, they will know who I am and where I live before they have that chuckle.

That's the part that I don't like. however, I hear that using words like viagra and cialis cause the filters to dump the data automatically. somehow I doubt that.

Re:Some degree of balance

[Anonymous Coward]

I value my freedom over the lives of people who might be killed by terrorists.

I also value their freedom over my life, which is why I served in the military.

Some things are more important than simply being alive.

Misleading Ars Article Title

[Mad Martigan]

The Ars article's title was: Federal judge doesn't buy state secrets argument in NSA wiretap case, which I think is a little misleading. Read this passage from State Your Secrets (an article by Louis Fisher appearing in the June, 2006 edition of Legal Times, reprinted courtesy of Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists)

The responsibility for deciding questions of privilege and access to evidence is central to the role of a judge in conducting a trial.

This authority is well established. In his well-known 1940 treatise on evidence, John Wigmore recognized the existence of "state secrets" but also concluded that the scope of the privilege had to be decided by a judge, not executive officials. He agreed that there "must be a privilege for secrets of State, i.e. matters whose disclosure would endager [sic] the Nation's governmental requirements or its relations of friendship and profit with other nations." Yet he cautioned that this privilege "has been so often improperly invoked and so loosely misapplied that a strict definition of its legitimate limits must be made."

Wigmore considered the claim of "state secrets" so abstract and useless that he divided it into eight categories, including exemptions from giving testimony, attending court, providing evidence by deposition, and disclosing communications by informers to government prosecutors. But on the duty to give evidence, he was unambiguous: "Let it be understood, then, that there is no exemption, for officials as such, or for the Executive as such, from the universal testimonial duty to give evidence in judicial investigations." An exemption from attendance in court "does not involve any concession either of an exemption from the Executive's general testimonial duty to furnish evidence or of a judicial inability to enforce the performance of that duty."

Wigmore came down clearly on which branch should determine the necessity for secrecy. It was the judiciary: "Shall every subordinate in the department have access to the secret, and not the presiding officer of justice? Cannot the constitutionally coördinate body of government share the confidence? The truth cannot be escaped that a Court which abdicates its inherent function of determining the facts upon which the admissibility of evidence depends will furnish to bureaucratic officials too ample opportunities for abusing the privilege . . . Both principle and policy demand that the determination of the privilege shall be for the Court."

Basically, he's saying that, yes, there are state secrets, but the judiciary -- not the executive -- is responsible for determining how trials involving state secrets proceed. This idea of someone crying 'State Secrets!!!1!!1!one!11!!!' and automatically getting a case tossed out is relatively new, and, as most of us here believe, contrary to the basic premise of the court system.

Your sig

[WindBourne]

NSA: The most organized, well funded group of terrorists in the world.

I wish that ppl would think about this before posting such things. First the NSA does not involve itself with manipulating others. All they do is monitor, as well as work on securing our (USA) communications and systems. In fact, up till recent times, the monitoring was limited to who and to where the data went. But the NSA was professional enough to not send it elsewhere (or perhaps greedy).

Now, the real issue here is the PATRIOT act which says that all information that is gleaned in the persuit of a terrorist can AND will be turn over to the doj and the executive branch. That is what you have to fear. If congress would change it to allow the NSA to monitor at will, but information could only be thrown over the fence iff there is a warrent or if it involves a true terrorists (and not just how a democratic senator is getting/giving carnal knowledge, etc), then we would be ok. But oddly enough, the congressman and admin are fighting that idea.

Re:Some degree of balance

[Clod9]

You use your political capital and public relations tools to convince the public to go along with your policy, yes. And then, after the chips have fallen, if the public sees that you lied and cheated solely to advance your personal ambitions and had no care at all for the nation and its soldiers, you get dragged off to prison. This is precisely what Bush did with his WMD's in Iraq, except he hasn't been hauled off yet. He's hauling off his opponents instead.

When the Prez says "trust us", and abuses that trust, it should only work once. But the American sheeple re-elected him! Idiots.

Lets hope people at the EFF don't go "missing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that would never happen in the good ol' USA.
Your friend in the north

Booze?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hookers! Don't forget Hookers!

Re:Booze?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, forget the EFF!

Re:Some degree of balance

[tourvil]

...but what if in 20 years a power hungry psycho uses the massive amount of power we let the NSA have today to declare a defacto dictatorship?

If we make the Presidency so powerful and unhampered as well as its agencies then corrupt evil people desiring power will seek this position. We must keep the Presidents and security groups in check so that this never happens.

This is the most important argument that anyone can make on this issue, IMO, and I'm glad to see you got modded up. People on both sides of the argument need to remember that they don't know what kind of people will be in power years from now, and we shouldn't screw up our system of checks and balances to buy a bit of short term security.

VAUGHN not JOHN Walker

[wsanders]

This is ND California, not court of appeals.

Maybe a carerr limiting move - depends on who gets elected in 2008!

There is already a faction in Congress trying to move the 9th District C of A (known to be a bunch of crazy motherf**er liberal hippies) to Boise or some other godforsaken place. Don't give them any ideas.

Re:VAUGHN not JOHN Walker

[Zathrus]

This is ND California, not court of appeals.

Aw crap... in researching the judge I did a more general search and pulled up the wrong judge.

Oddly, the real Judge Vaughn Walker was also appointed by Reagan and then appointed Chief Justice by George H. W. Bush. But, as you state, to the N.D. of California, not to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (which is in an entirely different part of the country).

So this probably was a "career limiting" move if the neo-cons retain control of the Republican party. They certainly won't reward him with a Appelatte court position and the Democrats are unlikely to appoint a conservative judge to the 9th.

Which makes it an even better story really... since it means that he's likely ruling with the law rather than with politics. And, better yet, it means the appeal has to go to the 9th Appellate court, which is unlikely to overturn his decision.

Someone go mod down my earlier post. Thanks.

Why does everybody act so surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

I pretty much assumed the government had already been doing this behind our backs. Just kinda seems like something they'd do. Shouldn't be done, but it's the government... Does anybody really think they are going to stop it? On another note, do you think that the NSA & CIA actually answer to Congress and the President? I think they pretty much have their own thing going on. I guess the difference is that I have more important battles to fight than this one... But if you want to keep on believing that some judicial process, a different set of congressmen, or a different president are going to change things, go ahead.

Now we get to really see

[obeythefist]

The american illusion of democracy boil away when this case is mysteriously, or not so mysteriously boiled away.

Re:YES!, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A win for those who dislike governments breaking their own laws!

*does a little dance*

*realises that we still have a LONG way to go*

*frowns*

  - TheDarkener now becomes the subject of NSA investigation . . . .

Ask Salmon Rushdie

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I guess I'm stupid. I don't understand ...how terrorists threaten my freedom.

Ask Salmon Rushdie.

I'd suggest you ask Theo van Gogh. But you'd need a Ouiga board to get his answer.

Re:Ask Salmon Rushdie

[ltbarcly]

Hmm. Which one of Rushdie's freedoms were threatened? His right to speech? Nope, he published several worldwide best selling books.

The radical islamists threatened his safety.

Think about what you are actually saying. You are saying that to have freedom, you must be alive. Therefore, you argue, a threat to life is a threat to freedom.

This is an amazingly aweful argument.

One way to analyze an argument is to change some of the objects around, but so that the logic of the argument stands. If you do this and the argument says something absurd, the implication of the argument is false (not the conclusion, the implication. That is to say that the result of the argument might still be true, but it might be false, and your argument doesn't help us to figure out which one at all because it is bogus.)

So, your argument is that if terrorists threaten your safety, they are threatening your freedom, since you have to be alive to excersize your freedom.

Food poisoning kills many more people per year than terrorism, no matter how you measure it. It is actually orders of magnatude more dangerous, and by dangerous I mean you are more likely to die of food poisoning than terrorist attacks.

Now, food poisioning is very different from terrorism, however, it is simmilar in that it is fairly random whether or not you are affected, and you can't do very much to avoid it, and it tends to affect groups of people all at once.

Now, using your argument, food poisoning is a threat to our freedoms. In fact, food poisong is more than ten times more of a threat to our freedoms than terrorists.

The idea that food poisoning is a threat to our freedoms is clearly absurd, therefore you have failed to show that terrorism is a threat to freedoms.

Now, it is doubly absurd that the government, to protect our 'freedoms' is violating federal law as well as the constitution.

The president has actually tried to hold a US CITIZEN who was arrested on US SOIL without access to a lawyer or a trial, and the president wanted to hold him in a military brig for an indefinite period of time. If you don't consider that a violation of the trust placed in the president, as well as a violation of his oath of office (to defend the constitution and faithfully uphold the laws of the US) then there is something wrong with you. What is wrong with you is that you think that there is some boogyman out there waiting to get you. There isn't.

America has enemies, but this is nothing new and shouldn't suprise you. There are people who want to kill you, and me. This isn't new. Frankly, there isn't any threat to our Nation. The terrorists might be able to kill Americans, but this is not new.

9/11 was not a moment when reality changed suddenly. The terrorists have been trying to get at us for years. On 9/11 they got lucky. Thanks to a combination of inept police work by the FBI and a refusal of the CIA to let anyone know about the terrorists they knew to be in the country, combined with a president who did not hold a single meeting on Al Qaeda at all until AFTER 9/11, even though he was recieving memos like the one titled 'Al Qaeda Determined to Strike Inside US' we didn't catch the terrorists before they attacked. If there were a 9/11 every single year you would still be more likely to die of Food Poisoning.

The terrorists can't 'win', they want to disrupt us and make it uncomfortable for us to continue with the policies they dislike. Even without any response by the US at all the terrorists can't win. They are very few, and they mostly pretty far away from us. All the terrorists in the world could not defeat a single brigade of US infantry. So they certainly aren't a threat like Hitler or the USSR were threats, in that they could destroy us if we didn't meet them with everything we had. The terrorists, if they were allowed to operate completely free and clear, would kill a few thousand Americans a year. This is a tragedy, but not as much of

MOD UP PLEASE

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang. I just used the last of my mod points this morning.

Well said.

Re:Sig

[WilliamSChips]

NSA: The most organized, well funded group of terrorists in the world.

Actually, I think that's the CIA, or possibly FBI.

how about

[nude-fox]

how about you stop sacraficing my freedom for your "secruity"

Ha!

[Mantrid42]

See, AT&T? Not so funny when WE spy on YOU!

The text doesn't hide between my shoulder blades..

[FatSean]

Spread accross a blimp...stretched in both plains so that the message can be read from long distances away.

The way we protect liberty will have to change

[CurtMonash]

A lot of people seem to be overlooking two basic facts:

1. The amount of information government truly needs to gather to protect us is also sufficient to greatly threaten our liberty.
2. Governments will inevitably gather much more information than they really need.

As a result, it is necessary to design legal systems (and where possible to restrain the design of technical systems) so that even though government has the information, it doesn't commonly use it in nefarious ways. I've written a series of articles about that. Most of them can be found starting from the link http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/06/freedom-eve n-without-data-privacy/, or more generally from http://www.monashreport.com/category/public-policy -and-privacy/privacy/

Examples of why we should expect government to gather huge amounts of information include, in no particular order:

A. All the call/e-mail/whatever connection information they're already getting, as documented in the news around NSA surveillance, AT&T's involvement, and so on.
B. Laws to require ISPs or information service providers to keep records of which IP addresses connect to which sites (so as to fight child porn, piracy, whatever).
C. Britain's moves towards complete video tracking of car movements (I get my reporting on this from The Register).
D. Credit card transaction records.
E. Forthcoming integrated electronic health records. (Those will have huge benefits to the saving of lives, quality of life, cost and efficiency of health care, etc. Whatever the privacy risks, they need to be managed so that health care is allowed to improve.)

And that's even without mentioning RFID.

What's slowing all this down is some political opposition, plus the huge technical difficulty of the required system integration projects. But in a small number of decades, it will all have happened. Our laws and oversight systems need to have evolved drastically by then. We have to start now.

I'm definitely not saying that we should cripple government in gathering and using information. Indeed, I'm an advisor to Cogito, a company with some of the most powerful relationship analysis software out there. http://www.dbms2.com/category/object-oriented-and- xml-technology/cogito/ But I think we need to radically upgrade our legal structures in response to these technological trends.

Re:The way we protect liberty will have to change

[Unlikely_Hero]

Or...we could just scrap all that insane tracking garbage, tell those that cry "protect me!! I'm scared!! take my rights they worry me!" to go to hell. If someone tells me that they need me to give up my rights so they won't die from their own inability to protect themselves, or from their own stupidity, I tell them to have a chat with Darwin.

Re:The way we protect liberty will have to change

[CurtMonash]

I think you're missing the point.

Those protections are, in part, needed, as key parts of police and military defense. Just the needed parts are liberty threats, as has always been the case with police and military powers. Hence, we set up rules and procedures to control those threats.

Technological change in the threats and in the defenses means that the rules and procedures need to be updated too.

Re:The way we protect liberty will have to change

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The amount of information government truly needs to gather to protect us is also sufficient to greatly threaten our liberty.

No amount of information will truly protect you from every threat. Never can, never will. The very premise behind all of the recent initiatives is fundamentally flawed.

I'm definitely not saying that we should cripple government in gathering and using information.

Yes, we should. (My sig is particularly appropriate at this moment.)

The security services should be able to gather information when they have a reasonable basis for expecting to need it. That information must be held confidentially until it becomes clearly relevant. If it turns out to be relevant, it should automatically be admissible in court. If it turns out not to be after a reasonable period, then it should be destroyed. Yes, I know that's a tough decision to make. Too bad.

And failure to handle the kind of information governments are starting to collect in a responsible fashion should be the thing carrying the draconian penalties.

Re:The way we protect liberty will have to change

[CurtMonash]

And I'm saying you're drawing a false dichotomy.

Yes, the Bush Administration is a bunch of Constitution-ignoring, rights-trampling jackbooters. But while their extreme is wrong, ignoring security and defense would also be wrong.

Data mining and network analysis really are needed for security. Either that, or we need to compromise other freedoms -- such as freedom of movement -- in ways that would REALLY be anti-liberty. There's no way around that.

Instead, we need to put up safeguards against information misuse that are highly effective. I agree with you completely there. Where we disagree is that I don't see how safeguards against actual information gathering will remain viable for much longer. At least, they will be a far from complete solution.

-VERB- Forward.

[Anonymous Coward]

" EFF Case Against AT&T To --> 'Go Forward' <--" <br>
" The NSA wiretap lawsuit filed by the EFF will apparently be -->'moving forward'<--. "

GAH!
I moving forward real good. I talk the business talk, I talk good.
We all moving forward, you going forward? Mr. MBA, are you going forward?
ac commits phrasicide... EH EH DIE DIE.. begone from the lexicon, to the devils throat you go. Retard a tongue made round about the asses of the land goatse I bannish you to lick the rim ever more is the punishment of your chatty cathy insistent repitition. YAK! YAK!! YAK!!!! *howard dean yalp!

Protecting freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand how invading a country protects my freedom.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein converted Iraq's reserve currency to euros. If other countries followed, the dollar wouldn't be worth as much, and the euro would be worth more. Considering how deeply in debt America is, this would probably cause its economic collapse. That's how occupying another country protects America's economy, if not its citizens' freedom.

Re:Some degree of balance

[crull]

Pretty interesting read about this at the dilbertblog.

Scott mentions that he'd be telling the truth about possible attacks and that might get people in fear. But in the long run the people will understand the probability of such attacks.

Re:Some degree of balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite Fucking True.

  God, read Animal Farm for that matter.

Re:Some degree of balance

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the slash dotters here are too young to remember J. Edgar Hoover and the enormous power that he had over every American president, senator, congressman and judge via all the information he collected about them.

Old J. Edgar could not be unseated from his FBI post till death because he could blackmail each and every politician and incoming president with unsavoury information about them. He literally had them by their balls.

It did not matter whether the President was republican or democratic. J Edgar ensured that he would remain the director of the FBI.

Stupid, or just naive?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think it's a little unfair to call a population (as a whole) "stupid" in cases like this. Perhaps "naive" would be more appropriate? After all, I suspect many of the people reading this board have spent a lot more time doing their homework on their nation's governments and the civil liberties implications than most average citizens. It shouldn't be necessary to assume that all the information you're getting out of government is misleading or outright wrong, though in practice with the sort of power-hungry governments and weak leaders we have in the West today it seems sadly necessary.

Ironically, I think it was Herman Goering who explained our current predicament best, in a comment he made during the time of the Nuremberg trials:

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

about time

[BigLonn]

Good I hope they hammer AT&T for every dime they can suck out of them!

Because Im a filthy Conservative & I think the terrorists Won!

Re:about time

[jackb_guppy]

Why? It will just raise your rates. Companies pass though costs.

Re:about time

[Anonymous Coward]

So customers switch, to cell phones, to voip, or (if they're really, really lucky) to another carrier. It hurts AT&T.

Re:Some degree of balance

[Anonymous Coward]

He literally had them by their balls.

I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means.

Poorly phrased.

[Valdrax]

My right to live my life without being molested on a constant basis by the government outweighs your right to not get blown up.

That statement doesn't point out that you've got a really good chance of getting spied on by the government (especially if the government goes evil) and a really, really small chance of getting killed by terrorists, especially compared to your daily chances of getting in a car accident or dying of a heart attack.

Re:Some degree of balance

[naddington]

It's Gestapo, man. With an A.

Lovely Quotes from the Ruling

[abb3w]

AFAIK, the government has always gotten "national security" cases such as this thrown out of court, this change represents a very good historical first!

However, as the judge notes:

But no case dismissed because its "very subject matter" was a state secret involved ongoing, widespread violations of individual constitutional rights, as plaintiffs allege here.

Or in other words, even the privilege of "state secrets" has limits, Mr. President. No, wait... not "in other words":

But it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. [...] To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired.

You mean the President can't just lie to the public and tell us to shut up?

[I]f the government has not been truthful, the state secrets privilege should not serve as a shield for its false public statements.

I think I like this judge. The procedural stuff in part III of the ruling (link FTA) is also quite clever: he's proposed appointing an expert to help him determine whether keeping something secret is really important, or just White House horseshit. Now as long as Specter's bill doesn't get through and force tranfer of this to the FISA court, this has some interesting possibilities.

Mind you, it still doesn't look good for the EFF. The judge emphasizes that nothing in his ruling should be taken to mean that they have a case, nor that they will get access to classified materials. This just means that the EFF deserves a chance to show they have one, from the non-classified materials... with perhaps the Judge telling the government that trying to classify this or that is idiotic. And if the EFF can't pull together a case, the judge's ruling explicitly allows for either the Government or AT&T from renewing the motions to get the case laughed out of court.

But it's a start.

Re:Some degree of balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, we will never know whether (and how often) the NSA's programs did indeed prevent attacks like 09/11.

What a load of manure. We hear about "elevated threat level"s, &c., all the time. Do you seriously believe that the administration would not have crowed long, and loud, if they had evidence of any attacks which they had successfully blocked? Think of the political capital that would have been reaped through such an act.

Wake up.
</rant>

Conservative is to Bigfoot

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Conservative" is just a label made up by the lazy news media to paint a region of the multivector space known as politics so they can split the TV screen in two and show "both sides." Let's not perpetuate the inanity.

So there are really two issues you're talking about. #1 is 'do you accept terrorist-caused losses in the USA to preserve freedom'. #1a is 'how many'. #1b is 'at what point, if any, is the constitution a suicide pact.' The vast majority of Americans come down in the "we're not going to not do anything" area. People are going to decide this along their authoritarian and safety axes - call it a 2D space, which is just a small subset of a person's political space. Being such a subset it's possible for people with very different positions on other dimensions of politics to wind up in the same region in this particular slice.

#2 is "If you're doing #1, what is permissible." That is what rights are going to be given up. Apparently the majority of the people falling into the above "do at least something" region feel that building connected graphs of call connection patterns for computer analysis isn't a serious infringement of basic civil rights. Others may feel differently. To put it into perspective, it has been estimated that if the Spooks really did want to listen in to everybody's calls, they'd have to employ 49 million people to do so. That would be a really big call center.

CAUTION: misleading quote!

[Rev Snow]

The summary is misleading because it
quotes the article in such a way as to
appear to be quoting the judge's opinion.

The word "scandal" does not appear in
the judge's opinion.

The article itself is clear on the quoting,
but Slashdot editors should know how few
people RTFA, and avoid giving them the
wrong impression.

In the meantime...

[Anonymous Coward]

...switch providers. "Hang up on NSA accomplices AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon Working Assets is the only telephone company participating in the ACLU's lawsuit against the National Security Agency. We believe that the warrantless monitoring of phone conversations ordered by the Bush administration is illegal and unacceptable. We oppose the sale of domestic calling records to the NSA by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon." Know of another company offering free G.W. Bush doormats for new subscribers? http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/nsa05- 15-06.html