Slashdot Mirror
Wiretap Ruling Threatens Telecoms
ches_grin writes "Yesterday's ruling on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems. The judge's decision clearly dismissed out of hand the arguments of the telecoms, saying that the protections due journalists and lawyers was a clear matter of the public's best interests." From the article: "Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore. 'Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement,' says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. 'There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective.'"
What a novel concept!
Let's try this: Let's conspire with a telecom provider to monitor government employee's communications and try to figure out what the government is thinking and what they're doing. Then, we'll blow the story all over the media and claim immunity based on something we just made up. We can claim that we were just making sure the federal government wasn't doing anything wrong and that if they weren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to worry or press charges. I wonder if the telecom provider and those involved would be prosecuted.
Oh, and we'll use a recent event to justify our actions. Like the war in Iraq. Yeah, uh, we need to make sure no one in the government is conspiring to start another war based on false information. That's it, that's why we need to monitor your communications.
If the government is taking actions like these that are illegal for us to take ourselves, it's starts to sound less like we're on equal footing with the government and more like the government is demanding we "do what they say not what they do." Does anyone else remember back in the day when the United States was a government of the people, by the people and for the people? None of these recent NSA actions sound "for" the people. More like "against" with what should be serious legal repercussions. What the hell ever happened to a weak federal government with strong local governments? That was the basic idea for our government I thought. Instead we have some backwards beltway insiders pushing everyone around while my local county and city governments try to figure out what the hell "PC Load Letter" means.
I say we jail those responsible (government directors and telecom CEOs who oversaw it) just as any citizen who tried the same thing would be jailed.
My work here is dung.
Um, just curious. What about the protections due to us average citizens, or don't we count anymore?
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Until the Republican-slanted Supreme Court overrules that brave federal judge with a party-line vote, new guy Alito being the tiebreaker. This is a victory, but do not be mistaken, it is a hollow one.
I agree someone needs to be held accountable. But it should be the government. No corporation can resist governmental pressure. Is this just the government trying to place blame elsewhere to protect itself?
"Well, you LET me do it! It's your fault!"
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
While I feel the wiretapping is illegal, suing the companies that helped the government I feel is bad practice. These companies are in a bad position both ways. First you got a governing body to tell you to do something or face the consequences. You can be noble and such and be placed in jail and/or pay for lawyers to defend you, or just do what they say because they tell you it for national security and you have to assume that it is legal.
It is similar to a situation where a policeman stops you and tells you to run that stop sign so they can give you a ticket or they will arrest you, on some charge like failure to cooperate with an officer. So what do you do, just get and pay the ticket because getting arrested is much more of a hassle and fighting it will take more of your time (lost work etc...) or stand up for what is right and get arrested and fight it, even though you will loose days or weeks of work costing you more then what the ticket would bring.
What will probably happen is these companies will in turn sue the NSA, for their damages, such as the smart thing would do is fight the traffic ticket and also sue for unlawful conduct by the police, and get some extra for your expenses.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Good. They deserve some socio-legal proctology for betraying their paying customers to the government, without even a hint of protest against an action that is illegal, against all precident, and clearly unconstitutional.
Makes you wonder how often they allow wiretapping without a warrant, doesn't it? Clearly they had no problem with it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
So, the telecoms are gonna be held culpeable.
What about Bush's administration?Are they going to get something even equal to a wristslap.
As much as I like the idea of blase corporations getting reamed in the hilt..
punishing one party(which is the subservient one) while the main offender(bush) is still scott free.. what exactly is the message that's going to be sent to corporations and business.
Unsure of their options.. the one's they'll take is quite likely the ones that are detrimental to people.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
It's only a matter of time before the Supreme court reverses the decision. If the Supreme court supports the decision then the program will continue in secret. No news here, move along.
Fuck 'em.
Apologies for the tin foil hat moment... I was wondering that myself, but from a more universal perspective, how do we as a society strike down this kind of thing? This is a victory for privacy, but there's no way the administration will just stop--it will appeal, or claim executive privilege, or just move the whole thing underground away from prying eyes. Even if we soundly boot the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008, does anyone expect the Democrats to do differently? How can we protect our rights to privacy in a day and age where the individual is so thoroughly marginalized?
I doubt the American public gives a flying crap either way. They're too busy watching American Idol to be concerned with telcom issues.
There was burglary, theft, and perjury, not to mention numerous other items uncovered by Archibald Cox (and of course, others).
Oh yeah, and there were about 28,000 GIs killed in Viet Nam, not to mention about a quarter of a million Vietnamese.
I suppose those dead people didn't count in the indictments... nor the resignation of Spiro Agnew for tax fraud-- his vice president.
Now, between Bush Jr and Sr, we have about 600,000 Iraqis dead, 3,500+ of our troops.
So there's wiretapping incideous habeas corpus violations, and heavens knows what else in the Bush administration.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Let's be serious here, this won't stand its ground. As long as the judges aren't independent from the rest of the governmental body, they will be at the governments beck and call. At the very least, this will be squished once it touches the supreme court.
I'll try to keep an eye on this to find out just how long it takes until that matter is "settled" (read: Drowned in enough red tape to be grinding to a halt), and at what body it will perish. Because if this matter is turned down and not even investigated, as I expect, the separation of powers in the US is dead. When the executive branch can do what it wants without being held in check by the supreme court, the transformation to a police state is finished.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the protections due [citizens] was a clear matter of the public's best interests.
Here you have it: freedom > security.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
To what extent are the service providers expected to know what the NSA is and is not allowed to do? If the NSA comes in and says you must do something, how much right do you have in that situation to say "no", or "let our lawyers approve this first"? With the Patriot Act in place and the fact that no one has ever really read what it actually says, how is anyone expected to stand up and tell the NSA to bugger off, that's unconstitutional? But these companies are not even the victims I'm concerned about.
What about those victims who were wrongly spied on? Those are the ones I'm afraid will end up paying for all this. If the service providers are sued for damages, where does that money come from? Either increased fees to consumers (who are the real victims), or the companies sue the government for some sort of wrongful representation of what the legality of the program was and NSA/Bush's rights to require them to comply and all that, and the government uses tax money to pay off their own legal losses, again going back to the consumers/victims.
Legally, we may have a win. Financially, we're all screwed, but I guess that's not really any different than any other day. Hopefully it at least gives companies reason to have a backbone and look into legal issues like that instead of just assuming NSA's requests are legit and immediately caving into that kind of intimidation, and possibly avoid a recurrence. But I won' tbe suprised if government in the future again will fool companies into unknowingly (in at least some cases) doing illegal things, or intimidating them into doing it anyway.
Ironically these people are members of the party that claims to champion a limited federal government that operates for not against the people. They campaigned on the very idea of shrinking government and reducing its invasiveness. They have reduced education and social spending (mostly through crippling unfunded mandates). They have left the science budget the same but selectively trimmed spending on some subjects e.g. Global Warming. But when it comes to spying on Americans and invading others no amount is too high and no law apparently can stand.
Not even Richard Nixon went around claiming that he was just "above the law because he says so" but apparently these people think that it is a valid legal principle.
This isn't flamebait, I'm being serious, the only other times that I can think of where anyone claimed such a thing (rule of law but my word is above all law) was the old Russian Tsars after Katherine the Great, and Adolf Hitler who had the "Furher's Princip". Again this isn't flamebait it is frightening.
Is there any reason to think that the telcos went along cheerfully? If so, unleash the lawyers^Whounds. However, I can easily imagine them being subject to pressures I'd rather avoid.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
clinton was impeached for lieing about a bj. now that bush has violated the rights of every person in gitmo, broken the law to spy on everyone, and in general ignored laws that displease him, can we impeach this pos now too?
the goverment is corrupt. we need to format and start over with a fresh install.
i support a death penalty for gov corruption / incompetance. all public servants should face 2x the penalty of a normal citizen. im tired of assholes who get elected just to increase their wealth.
-.no
They're in a bad position? Oh, the poor corporations! We, the people, have for generations had to fight and die to defend our freedoms, but the new "Corporate people" who demand all the rights of citizenship might get stuck paying a fine or something if they refuse to actively break the law! The horror! The unfairness of it all!
I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders. That way, it becomes a no brainer to say "No way!" the next time you are asked to betray the nation at the behest of a few power hungry elected officials or their minions.
That, or we could just give 'em a pass this time and hope that they've learned their lesson...
--MarkusQ
Yep!
It looks like most people already got used to Newspeak nowadays...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
These telcos explicitly participated actively in surveillence that their lawyers should have told them was illegal. But what about CALEA in general? What about all the new VoIP surveillence? "Echelon", or whatever they call it now? If/when these surveillence programs are held accountable, if/when they are proven to violate the law and rights of Americans, what kind of liability will telcos, ISPs, and just nodes on the network hold just for compliance?
Should we offer users security from surveillence out of our obligation to ourselves for avoiding liability when the government abuses our cooperation? Or even just protecting ourselves from lawsuits which will fail but cost expenses/time, or just the ill will of the market? Qwest communications apparently did not cooperate with the NSA domestic spying program. Did they make the only good business decision of all their competitors?
--
make install -not war
Privacy is only for nutcases with kooky ideas, and miscreants trying to hide their activities. Do you really think that my fellow Alabamans care if you have phonesex and talk about a blowjob? Ok, there's a law against blowjobs here, but really, who's gonna arrest you? And so what if someone plays your blowjob talk in front of the whole world one day? That's the whole point of removing privacy for Americans; if you're too ashamed of what you do in secret being shouted on the mountaintops, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
As for our Government's privacy.... they need privacy. Unlike your fantasies of privacy, their privacy is in the interest of protecting us from terror. A Government shrouded in absolute secrecy and shielded from accountability, ruling over a completely transparent constituency, is the only way to assure our public safety.
I for one would rather sacrifice my freedoms than risk my safety.
This is Pat Riot, the voice of a safe, secure America!
[okay, you just know this is a parody, right?]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
According to wikipedia, companies do not have to give full and complete accounting of their records if it the president gives them permission in the name of national security.
"Companies are permitted by US securities law (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) to refrain from properly accounting for their use of assets in matters involving national security, when properly authorized by an agency or department head acting under authorization by the President. This legalese essentially means that companies can falsify their accounting reports and lie about their activities when the President decides that it is in the interests of national security to do so. President Bush issued a presidential memorandum on May 5, 2006 delegating authority to make such a designation to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, just as the NSA call database scandal appeared in the media." [Emphasis mine]
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
That would be silly, given all the unconstitutional/illegal things he has admitted (even bragged) about doing.
Not at all correct. As Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Papers, impeachment of judges for rulings which go against the intent of congress is an essential part of the checks and balances:
--MarkusQ
You know there are a lot of well-meaning people who end up getting the shaft when people in authority abuse power. The problem is that if you don't follow orders, you're likely to be arrested. Imagine being a soldier protesting orders on the grounds that they were unethical... in some countries, any such people were quickly removed from the gene pool. My fellow slashdotters, we in the U.S. live in a police state. If the police tell you to do something, you damn well better do it, or you're not going to see the sun shine for a long time after some court somewhere decides that you were told to commit an illegal act. And being, as you are, an "idiot citizen," the government doesn't afford you the right to judge right vs. wrong for yourself.
So you're damned it you don't (they'll arrest you right away if you refuse), and you're damned if you do (you'll be up on civil or criminal charges later when it's determined that you were asked to do an illegal thing). In this system, you can't win.
Mind you, companies like AT&T have a lot of lawyers and a lot of power. But even they can't refuse completely. If you refuse to do what the NSA says, they will find a judge to issue an order to close down your business a LOT quicker than you can find another judge to rule their orders illegal. Oh, and then there are the various appeals processes that draw it out, leaving you in legal limbo for years.
Up until the moment that your orders are found illegal, refusing to follow those orders is the only thing illegal.
No the answer is for Americans to get the *&%$ over this two party mentality and the driving NEED to vote for the guy who one and VOTE, VOTE OFTEN and VOTE YOUR CONTSCIENCE, not who you think is going to win.
Also do not vote based on a single issue. Regardless of what you may think of the abortion issue basing a decition as important as who you vote for on that single issue is STUPID. If politician X agrees with me on 8 of 10 issues I find important and disagrees on 2, and politician Y agrees with 2 and disagrees on 8, why the hell would I pick Y even if those 2 where "hot button" issues? Yet oh so many Americans do.
You know as well as me that the judge's decision will be overturned. There is absolutely no way that the American legal-political system, as it currently exists, could possibly agree, for an extended period of time, that there has been wrongdoing by both the executive and just about every telecom company. What's more, when the decision is overturned we'll be worse off than before because the legality of the status quo as of the day before yesterday will be enshrined as legal precedent and so the government will move on to push the boundaries even further.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
> The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore.
I believe it will set a precedent that only courts in the same district can't ignore; courts in other districts can ignore it, though they may choose to take it as a persuasive authority. Only precedents from the Supreme Court of the United States are binding on *all* lower courts.
davidh
But not on impeachment. Rather with sweeping legislation clearing the telcos of any civil and/or criminal liabilities. And in fact increasing the power of the telco monopolies while they are at it through a few well hidden amendments.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
When you put this into perspective plain and simple the Telcos were wrong to go along w/ this. The Bush Administration came to them and said we want to tap your hubs. The first thing that should have come to mind for the telcos was is this legal. The second thing that should have come to mind is that they have an obligation to their customers FIRST. You know the people paying them for service? Third, they should have thought about the 4th amendment to the constitution and the first amendment on which their services rely heavily.
The fact is that they were completely complicit in these actions. They probably didn't even submit it to their lawyers or if they did their lawyers said well if anyone sues us we'll argue that we were told by the government, etc.
Remember they also aren't just tapping phones they are analyzing and filtering ALL of the data that passes through the ATT switches...IE EVERYONE!
This administration and the companies cooperating in warrantless eavesdropping are guilty of the biggest constitutional offense in US history...the baffling part is that they openly admit it as though it were legal and / or ok.
Impeachment NOW! Don't wait until the rest of the amendments have been violated.
Yes, Nixon did some very dirty things, like trying to steal democracy from the American people. But his administration did more good for the country then GWB has. Just a few of Nixons lasting accomplishments:
- Creation of the E.P.A.
- Ending engagement in Vietnam
- Opening China to diplomatic relations, including their induction as a UN member state
- Singning of the SALT treaty and the ABM treaty with the soviets
- Embracing and signing-off on the NASA STS program
- Elimination of the "Gold Standard" of US Currency allowing more natural currency flux
No matter what, you can't seperate Nixon from Watergate. But he isn't anywhere near the worst president we've had. And in a way, watergate helped America. A healthy distrust for government is a good thing.
This world would've been a much better place today had RFK not been shot. He would've ate Nixons lunch in a general election and the course of history would've been changed. I'm a big blue-stater but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
Bush seems to justify a lot of things by saying that the USA is at war. But it's not a type of war that anyone even half a century ago would have recognised. It may be that it *is* a war, (of sorts) but if so I see no prospect of it ever ending. Maybe you (and your allies, such as my own green and pleasant land) will acheive victory over Al Qaida et al but I'm sure that there will be more such extremists in the future.
If "war" can be used as a justification for additional powers make no mistake: they will be permenant.
I hope everyone was this angry when all the previous presidents did the same thing, or when this FISA BS was passed.... http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Warrantless_Eavesdr opping_Timeline
That's prolly a good idea.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Interesting statistics there. In Vietnam we were at a roughly 10:1 kill ratio. In Iraq we're way over that at 171:1
We've gotten much more efficient at killing people. So our tax dollars are being used for something productive, we just didn't know it.
One word: impeach.
The Bush administration is in a mess here. Their real problem is that if they'd asked the FISA court for the authority to do what they're doing, they'd have been turned down. If they'd asked Congress for it, some tough questions would have been asked by members of Congress in a position to demand answers. Remember, the conservative right, "Bush's Base", isn't comfortable with wiretapping. Bush can go to Congress for more wiretapping authority, but right now, he probably wouldn't get it. Hence the desperate legal moves.
And they are desperate. Notice what happened here. The Administration tried to use a secrecy order to prevent this issue from going to trial. That's because they can't win on the merits. But since the Administration had already admitted enough in public to establish that such wiretapping was going on, that didn't prevent the court from addressing the issue.
At the appeals level, the facts of the case aren't reviewed, just the law. Because, as the district judge pointed out, it is not controverted that such wiretapping occured, that's not a issue. So the secrecy issue isn't really an issue on appeal. This leaves the Administration with only its weak arguments.
Incidentally, this is a criminal statute. See 50 USC 1811. If you work for NSA, or a telephone company and are involved in illegal wiretapping, you could go to jail for five years. That could happen years in the future, under a future administration.
Bzzz, thanks for playing.
Judges determine the constitutionality of laws. They also determine whether actions are legal (comport with the law) or illegal (in violation of a law). You're confusing the judge's role as 1) interpreter of law and 2) interpreter of fact.
Function 1 is solely reserved to the judiciary. Judges add their fact finding role when they weigh evidence, such as evidentiary hearings, bench (jury-waived) trials, and when deciding motions. Juries are used only to determine facts. They don't decide questions of law. This was a motion decision, and the judge made a determination that a set of facts (the wiretapping) violated the law (here, several: Title 18, FISA, Amendments 1 and 4).
The Constitution IS a law. We do have a special name for violating it, unconstitutional, but illegal still works.
IANYL.
Interesting statistics there. In Vietnam we were at a roughly 10:1 kill ratio. In Iraq we're way over that at 171:1
And this is something we should be proud of?
This isn't a video game, and many of those dead (like the Viet Namese before them) are nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of the military.
Besides, it's not your tax dollars, or mine, paying for this. It'll be the taxes of our sons and daughters, and likely their sons and daughters, that will pay for this ill conceived and poorly executed attempt at redefining a regions political and cultural landscape.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Nobody,including this judge, said the government isnt allowed to spy. They/we are saying, that the government isnt allowed to spy without a warrant presented to and approved by a FISA court.
You bushbots can keep presenting straw man arguments and attempts at obsfucating the issues, but it boils down to this....
we are a nation of laws. That includes the President and those that work for him. No exceptions.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
The only middle ground is in the level of punishment.
This isn't true in all cases. For instance there are heavy minimium sentencing requirements for drug offenses. Someone caught with illegal drugs can spend more tyme in prison even when they didn't harm anyone than someone who violently harms someone else will.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What's amazing is how the rough, tough Authoritarian Right-Wing in this country turned into a bunch of frightened little bedwetters because of a single terrorist attack, so willing to have "Big Daddy" government take away their rights and freedoms so they can be protected. I have to say that I'm ashamed so many of my countrymen have bought into the manipulation of the Bush Administration, which is simply bent on consolidating power at any cost. The events of recent weeks in Britian have shown that a civilized country can fight terrorism without resorting to breaking the law. Even if it's a little bit harder, so be it. We have accepted a lot of things that are harder because we are a free people. Remember, it's much easier to govern as a dictator than as an elected official, responsible to the citizenry. And, it's much easier to live in prison than in the free world. I choose to be free, as have Americans for more than two centuries. And when I hear the Bill Bennetts, William Kristols, Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys, shaking in their boots, so afraid that the big bad terrorists are going to drop a plane on their heads, just begging the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush to please, take away their freedom so they don't have to pee their pants any more, it disgusts me, as it should disgust every American.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes, because efficient killing of brown people is the pinnacle of human achievement. And also the best possible use of our tax dollars. Think of the children!
Does it strike anybody else as odd that the article quotes the prediction of doom for the telcos made by the very people who are suing said telcos?
"Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA.
I mean, the quote pulled from TFA is from the ACLU's lead attorney. Sounds like a severe case of somebody saying exactly what you would expect them to say -- about they only thing they can say without looking like they've filed a frivilous lawsuit. So, whatever you think about the merits of the case, the merits of the prediction are clearly too underwhelming to get worked up about.
As for the merits of the case, scared people do dumb things. We had Japanese internment camps in WWII, and the system righted itself. I'm guessing that after all the thrash and bluster, it will this time, too. Of course, I didn't start saying that until I took off my tin foil hat.