Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
BalanceOfJudgement writes "A major victory by the federal government was won today when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against AT&T for providing phone records to the federal government. From the article: 'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'" Not to be confused with the EFF case, this case was filed by the ACLU on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who argued that their constitutional rights had been violated by the actions of AT&T and the NSA.
RIP America, good things never last.
One has to ask one's self who the true enemies of this country are.
My *&$@ing jaw dropped when I saw the headline. 'I THOUGHT THE JUDGE JUST WENT FORWARD WITH THE CASE!!'... Halfway down the article 'Not to be confused with the 500 other stories this month about AT&T Lawsuits by the EFF'....
...I was about to start a riot.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Ok, so someone sues AT&T for providing the government with data, and the judge rules that by even revealing whether this is the case or not would give away information about how the government gets it's data. Does anyone else think that's slighty worrying? Now this has happened, no-one can ever sue any firm that may or may not be involved with helping the government out with intelligence, because the information resulting from such a case would lead to information becoming public domain about how the government performs its intelligence ops. So we're all screwed.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
There really is a fundamental flaw in this system.
I am doing something.
You ask what I'm doing.
You say it's illegal.
If I tell you, it will expose secrets.
I don't expose secrets.
You don't know what I am doing.
You can't tell me what I am doing is wrong, because you don't know what I am doing.
I am doing something. Too bad.
How exactly is it that the government can set up a system that is completely impervious to moral question? Keep in mind, this really is the NSA's wrongdoing, but it's more or less impossible to sue the government. Now, the government is saying you can't sue them either!?
What if the NSA was secretly executing suspected terrorists without warrants, due process, etc? Oh hell, let's say they were hiring a private (non-government) corporation to do that for them. It would obviously be illegal, but how would stopping that be any different? Someone would say "you can't just kill people, it's illegal", and the NSA would say "you can't ask that question, it would expose state secrets". And the NSA would continue to kill "terrorists".
Shouldn't this program be immediately halted while the morality (oh hell, legality) of it is in question?
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
I really don't have all of the details so I can't actually say for sure whether this lawsuit would have uncovered information that could have decreased the United States' ability to combat terrorists, however, the truth is I DON'T CARE. There are a lot of things that COULD be done to increase security in the States, but many of them would be worse than the very things they would seek to eliminate. From what I know I would argue that this is probably one of them, though again, I don't know the true details. In a free country you simply can't have allegedly illegal government programs that aren't subject to claims of illegality. There's an argument to be made for suspending such things in times of true emergency, distant conflicts with various terrorist organizations likely to last indefinitely not being one.
More than likely there is an extensive spying program with relatively poor and easily avoidable detection methods and that's the reason it is being so well protected. Only the atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt is helping them "fight" terror, the program itself probaby doesn't do much besides producing false positives. If the details were made public it would almost certainly be cancelled even if it was legal.
Haiku for you!
The really baffling thing about this case is that the government somehow made the argument that terrorists, given uncertainty about whether or not the government is snooping in this way, will assume that it isn't happening.
Any competent terrorist has almost certainly been operating under the assumption that this already happens for years. I mean, they're being hunted by the world's biggest military power, and we're supposed to think they don't even take basic precautions?
I remember once hearing the proud words of a US firefighter who was involved in the Ground Zero cleanup, saying something along the lines of "the terrorists will never take away our freedom".
And he was right. It took the Bush Administration to achieve that one.
Sits back and waits to modded down by neo-con fanatics.
Then you, my friend, are a fool.
There is no "short-term" to a never ending "war" on an ephemeral notion like terrorism.
Mark my words - when your liberties are gone, they're gone for good.
What have you got to hide, citizen?
Privacy is for terrorists. Law abiding, God fearing citizens should be proud of people knowing what they're doing. Only wicked people hide their activities.
Would you rather be free or be safe from terror? (end right wing satire)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Ignoring the civil liberties aspect.
Ignoring the government secrecy aspect.
Ignoring that the NSA is legally bound not to conduct domestic surveillance.
Those are some pretty FUCKING big pills to swallow, but I'll pretend, hypothetically, that I can let those things go. *gulp*.
The government's argument is this:
1. We are not conducting such surveillance, nor have we done anything illegal.
2. The reason we have not done anything illegal is because you cannot demonstrate that AT&T provided records to the government.
3. Forcing the government to provide such evidence might alert the terrorists that this surveillance program, which does NOT exist, is watching them, making us less safe.
4. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.
These statements are not congruent. There's no defensible argument here. One of the government's position is that AT&T did not provide records to the government. If that didn't occur, then there is no potential security risk. The entire government "reponse" is that we aren't doing any surveillance, but proving that may, potentially, alert Terrorists to the surveillance we are doing.
Frankly, I'm depressed we have a Republican Congress, because this kind of outrageous, unconstitutional, illegal, dictatorial, fascist behavior, layered in hypocrisy, deserves impeachment .
We impeached a President because an intern blew him, and he was misleading about it in Congressional Hearings.
Bush has, and continues to, lie about the existing of a ubiquitous domestic surveillance program that is without a doubt illegal, and his justification is, "Because I'm the boss, you all are children, and you can't handle the truth"
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot protect the secrecy of an illegal surveillance program under the grounds that it "doesn't exist". I hope, Mr. Bush, that the Heaven and Hell you believe in are real, so that you may burn in the lowest levels of hell, that reserved for traitors.
I say this as a person who supports the war in Iraq, I say this as a staunch conservative. Rot in Hell, Mr. President.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?
Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?
Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?
But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.
Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'
Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?
Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?
Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
You can't tell me what I am doing is wrong, because you don't know what I am doing.
No, this is not a fishing expedition.
In this case, we know what they are doing and that it's wrong. A credible witness has come forward and told us about wiretapping, which violates the fourth amendment by violating your right to be secure in your home and private papers. What's missing is proof of the extent of the crime. It's not if they were doing something wrong or what that wrong was, GWB has admitted it, it's how much wrong was done.
Shutting down the investigation for "security" is outrageous and disgusting. They might as well tell us, "if we have to get search warrents to violate you, the terrorists will win." There are laws against domestic spying and they are being violated.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'
In other words, "adversaries of this country" can safely assume AT&T disclosed large quantities of telephone records. In the unlikely event that they didn't, our adversaries will surely and prudently prefer err on the side of caution.
Citizens of this country, by contrast, have been denied even the semblance of justice, as their own government tramples over their rights.
If that isn't victory for the "adversaries of this country" I don't know what would be.
Whilst they head right down the same path.
If you think the EU will somehow be different, think again. All of this is happening in the entire world. Soon the only countries which aren't themselves police states will be the puppets of police states (because they won't have the power to refuse).
This is happening throughout the world because the same people are behind it: the people who run the big multinational corporations and who also conveniently control the mass media. They want fascism because fascism is by definition friendly to big business, and thus to them. They have far more influence, and thus control, over all governments than we ever could. Those governments control all the guns that matter -- their firepower outranks that of the citizens (even the well-armed ones) by many, many thousands to one. And history has shown countless times that those in the military have no reservations whatsoever about turning their guns against the citizenry.
Face it: we've lost. The entire world is descending into darkness and despair, and this time there's no climbing out of it for a really long time (centuries, perhaps even millenia). Police states almost never collapse from within: it almost always takes an outside influence to topple them. That can't happen if the entire world is under the control of police states.
At least the patriots of the American Revolution had a fighting chance of winning, thanks to the technological circumstances of the time. But now, there's no chance at all.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Bin Laden wanted America to live in fear. To understand we are not free. 9-11 brought this country together, under horrible circumstances. But then Bush stepped in and finished what Bin Laden was trying to do.
One of the worst days in human history was the day in 1849 when a U.S. Federal judge declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals.
Prior to that day, corporations were answerable to the government as to their purpose and behavior. On that day, they became free to be as unethical and irresponsible as your average Joe.
Problem is, your Average Joe doesn't have the ruthless efficiency of never sleeping, nor the power to destroy countless natural resources in the pursuit of 'profit.'
One of the worst days in human history...
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Massive difference there, IMHO.
Those examples are isolated cases of badness in an overall good, or at least perceived as good, country.
Right now, the USA is perceived as a bad country by most of the rest of the world. In fact, the vast majority of europeans laugh out loud when you call other countries "axis of evil" or "rogue nations", because that fits yourself so much.
Right now, there are isolated cases of goodness in an overall evil country. It's not a case of "bouncing back". You've destroyed about 50 years of reputation building in 5 years of Bush. You can't bounce back, you'll have to take the long way around and start from scratch. It'll be decades before the rest of the world trusts you again.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org