EFF Sues the Dept. of Defense Over Surveillance

An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched a lawsuit against the US government, demanding the publication of information about FBI cyber surveillance operations. The EFF launched its action after the authorities failed to disclose information requested under the Freedom of Information act. The EFF wants to find out more about two electronic surveillance systems used by the government agency to monitor electronic communications." From the article: "A Justice Department Inspector General report in March said the FBI had spent about $10 million on DCS-3000 to intercept communications over emerging digital technologies used by wireless carriers before next year's federal deadline for them to deploy their own wiretap capabilities. The same report said the FBI spent more than $1.5 million to develop Red Hook, 'a system to collect voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information' before those wiretap capabilities are in place."

Comments

Donate to the EFF

[lathama]

Everyone make a donation to the EFF, they have done a lot......

Website

How effective can this be?

[DarkBlackFox]

IANAL, but how effective can any sort of lawsuit against the government be these days? Isn't it the same government that runs the courts? If the FBI feels national security is at stake by releasing the information the EFF is looking for, wouldn't they just say to the courts "oh, it's national security.. terrorists and the like, it's best if you leave us be." And the court answer would be "oh well, if it's in the name of national security, you guys are all set. Case dismissed."

Or is there any integrity left in the government at this point.

Re:How effective can this be?

[jfengel]

There is, at least in theory, a bright line between the courts and the executive branch. Supposedly it's why judges are appointed for life: it lets them base their decisions on their own judgment, not what will get them re-elected. (In practice that just makes the nominations more partisan, and the fights over them more bitter.)

It just so happens that the Supreme Court at the moment is as closely divided as the rest of the country. The last presidential election was 51-48, and even the heavily lopsided Senate is 55-45 (technically 55-44-1). The Supreme Court has four reliably conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito), four reliably liberal ones (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) and one swing (Kennedy).

That last is generally counted among the conservatives, havign been appointed by Reagan, but he has voted to curtail the President on various issues, e.g. Hamdan (the one that forced Bush to change his plan on tribunals for the Guantanamo inmates).

So the answer to your question is that yes, there is a vague chance of the lawsuit being effective, though it's a close call, and it's probably up to one guy.

(Though just to get political for a second, the most reliable liberal is 86 year old Justice Stevens. If he retires or dies before January, a Republican Senate will probably replace him with a young conservative, and that would make the court 5-3-1 for the next several decades. Should the Democrats win the Senate in November, and he retires/dies in the next two years, the President will send over conservative candidates until he either sends over a moderate the Democrats can't oppose without looking stupid, or they crack under the pressure of having an empty seat for too long. The upshot is that my "yes" above may be temporary.)

Allow me to correct that for you.

[khasim]

The tree comment is not about the falling but whether "sound" exists without someone to hear it. The disturbance of the air exists, that is easy. But is that disturbance "sound" if no one can hear it?

So, if someone taps your phone, your phone has been tapped.

The question you are asking should be "if no one requests that tap be used, have your Rights been violated".

Once that tap has been used, and data collected, whether any person sees that data is irrelevant. The tap has been used, the information has been collected. The tree has fallen, the sound has been heard.

Re:FBI is DOJ not DOD

[merreborn]

Funny that trying to keep the government out of your business is now a 'leftist' concern.

Once upon a time, trying to keep the government from expanding, and maintaining privacy were right-wing issues.

Re:Liberal hysteria!!

[rolfwind]

I am an independent.

Now, I will be branded a liberal, since I admitted watching "The Daily Show" last night, but in one of the clips at the end, in the moment of zen segment, Bush described his job, among a million other things, as confronting the problems of the country head on and not leaving them to future administrations/generations to deal with.

Can anyone say he has left office leaving the future with less problems than, about equal, or more? I am not talking about pre-existing problems like the budget or healthcare, or even 9/11 terrorism. But with Iraq, with no real terrorist connections, with our spending billions each years, probably trillions over the lifetime of that campaign, will we be safer? Will the Middle East be more stable? Will our deficit be better off? Is our standing to face other threats secured?

Now, I agree with the decision to invade Afghanistan. But, still today, we have never been shown a clear connection to terrorism against the US and Iraq, nor any good motivations besides perhaps revenge in that Saddam was his father's enemy, (and once a "friend" of the US, under Reagan or earlier I think).

I only hope that in the 2008 elections, we have a return to moderates and realistic people like John McCain or Joe Biden or perhaps, gasp, some votes for Independent around the country in different positions.

Re:Liberal hysteria!!

[DM9290]

"Liberated Iraq."

HAHAHA.. you do understand that only right wing evangelical neoconservatives think that "liberty" means the same thing as "bombed into the stone age with no sustainable government/security/industry or future (except a civil war) or merger into a some mega theocratic union with our friends in Iran".

The rest of us see your use of the word "Liberated" for what it is: stupid and empty repetition of Republican talking points.

The mission is already "Accomplished". The mission to create instability in the middle east in an attempt to slow down Europe from becoming the dominant superpower on earth. A mission to create world animosity against the US so that dumb neocon (even a camel can get through the eye of a needle if he's a born again camel) authoritarian followers have even more reasons to go to sleep each night wondering if perhaps the rapture will finally save them from this hell on earth we've created, and in the meantime to support every single right wing neofascist measure to transfer yet more funds from the public coffers into the bank accounts of our loving and benign "business leaders".

Bush and friends didn't give a rats ass about the iraqi people in 1991 through to 2003 and certainly don't give a flying fuck now. And if you think that they give a rats ass about the American people either, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

America has been royally screwed by the neocon movement and she is still taking it like a 2 cent whore. WAKE THE FUCK UP!