DOJ Still Looks To Have Suit Against Verizon Tossed

An anonymous reader writes "With Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell acknowledging that the 'private sector' had a hand in assisting the president's warrantless wiretapping initiative, the DOJ is ever more strenuously demanding that the suit against Verizon be dropped. 'The Justice Department attorneys argue McConnell's statements did nothing to change the fact that it hasn't ever confirmed any of the activities alleged by the class action plaintiffs--and has, in fact, denied the existence of any sort of "dragnet." The arguments made by the class action plaintiffs rest on nothing but "speculation," the attorneys wrote. In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.'"

Comments

Gone but not Gonzales

[Doc Ruby]

Evidently, just finally dropping Gonzales from his stonewall turret isn't enough to force the "Justice" Department back into the service of the American people and our legitimate security needs. Eventually this circling the wagons over the illegal domestic spying will start claiming that holding responsible the guilty parties will threaten the existence of corporations like Verizon, and their buddies in the government.

They will hold our country hostage to get us to let them walk all over our people.

Re:Gone but not Gonzales

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Dead on, Baby. The super-secret outsourcing of "intelligence" to private-sector firms is the "$1000-Dollar Hammer" of the new century. With the added benefit from the both the size of the contracts and the protecting from public scrutiny because such information "is classifed" and discussion of the topic "aids terrorists" and "will result in Americans dying."

If you thought you saw something over the last decade - with big telecom industries operating a revolving-door operation with the FCC regulators, just wait and see what "intelligence" has in store! There is profit in War - that's what the size of the "defense" budget represents: how much of your taxes will be funneled as a subsidy to Haliburton and General Dynamics. Now, AT&T and VeriZion are in on the act.

In other words...

[hax0r_this]

We're screwing you for your own good.

Re:In other words...

[Tackhead]

Verizon: "Can you hear me now? NSA can. It's the Network."
AT&T: Your world, delivered. To NSA.
Cingular: Lowering the bar.

> We're screwing you for your own good.

OK, fess up. Which telco are you working for?

Good subject for confirmation hearings

[Animats]

This should come up in the confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General.

self preservation

[wizardforce]

If verizon gets hammered by lawsuits over the illegal wiretapping it doesn't stop there, eventually there will be pressure put on the agencies that did this nonsense in the first place. I suppose that they figure by shielding Verizon it'll discourage any further suits and investigations into what the department was doing.

Re:self preservation

[Sunburnt]

santorum-spewing

Are you referring to the ideas of a certain ex-Senator, or to "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex?"

Hopefully judges wont buy that sort of shit.

[AlanS2002]

In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.

I would of thought that if that were the case that not all the hearings would be open to those without necessary clearance. Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. Along the lines of "We've done stuff we shouldn't of done, but because it's in the interests of national security, we can't tell you what we did and how we will keep on doing it".

Re:Hopefully judges wont buy that sort of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Along the lines of "We've done stuff we shouldn't of done, but because it's in the interests of national security, we can't tell you what we did and how we will keep on doing it".

Worse: I expect them to argue that exposing the wrongdoing itself will degrade national security. The rationalization being that if nobody knows about an ongoing crime then there's no outrage. Since criminals were allowed to operate within the system, exposing that fact will undermine confidence in the system overall.

For example, it wasn't until evidence of prisoner abuse surfaced that that subject began to cause its own additional stress on national security.

The thinking is that if you could stop the leak, there would be no outrage and no outrage == no problem.

Congressional Hearings

[The Angry Mick]

You know, I usually can't stand the idea of Congressional hearings on anything (they end up being more campaign speech-y, than enlightened probes), but this might be an instance where I'm inclined to change my opinion. If there was any type of collusion between the government and big business to break the law of the land, quite a few corporate heads need to roll.

Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath. What I cannot abide is watching anybody lie to Congress, and get away scot free. Especially corporations that have received substantial benefits (subsidies, market consolidation, etc.) from the very same people they are lying to.

Re:Congressional Hearings

[AlanS2002]

Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath.

Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen. If Major corporations have wronged their customers and the DOJ has acted in an illegal manner it needs to be corrected, not brushed under the carpet because it's "in the interests of national security".

Re:Congressional Hearings

[mrchaotica]

Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen.

I'm wiling to make an even stronger statement: FUCK "national security!" If we, as a nation, have to make a choice between "national security" and checks and balances, then we're just damn well going to have to be "insecure!"

Re:Congressional Hearings

[rtb61]

Technically speaking, as a democracy, the security of it's citizens is the first priority of 'national security' as such, ensuring that the government and it's agencies does act in a manner that would be approved by the citizens is in the interest of the citizens and provides them with security.

So all those acts must be made public to ensure that they actually do or would receive public approval. In hiding it's methods and it's actions, the current administration and it's political appointees know that the public would not approve of those methods used and the actions taken, and they are specially via their secretive actions are endangering the security of the citizens and in turn having a major negative impact on national security.

So you do in fact want national security, but you want if for real, not just legal bull shit to hide unconstitutional and criminal activities as well as the corruption that allows those activities to occur. The current administration gives major concessions to telecommunication industries that actively disadvantages the majority of citizens, in turn the telecommunication companies allows and supports gross abuses of the constitution and the law to occur on it's services for purely politically motivated purposes.

It was a confession of guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

What he said was that the lawsuits would bankrupt Verizon:

"Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,"

Which means they have merit. Moreover he said it publicly, so he can testify the same under oath without causing any additional problems for national security.

They should be thrown out.

[DaveWick79]

When the DOJ comes to your company and says, "by executive order, do this", you don't just ignore them. It isn't the fault of these companies that phones were tapped, that's like blaming the gun for a robbery.

Re:They should be thrown out.

[TooMuchToDo]

What country do you live in? Obviously, not the US. The DOJ doesn't have "executive order". Unless they come to you with a warrant (even a FISA-issued warrant), you're a jackass for violating your customer's privacy. This isn't "24".

Re:They should be thrown out.

[Sunburnt]

When the DOJ comes to your company and says, "by executive order, do this", you don't just ignore them.

That's right. You have your legal department determine if the EO would make your company violate the law (not hard, since that's the office to which EOs are submitted in the first place) and, if so, file with the court to have an injunction placed on the feds.

Ignoring an executive order is as bad as just bending over for it.

Pure B.S.

[PPH]

In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.

Pure DoJ bullsh*t.

The safe bet is that the NSA is packet-sniffing all foreign and domestic communications involving targeted individuals or, in the event they can't narrow it down to an IP address, they monitor all the public WiFi services in the neighborhood. Anyone familiar with the technology can figure out how to do it. Anyone communicating with individuals abroad or any number of 'suspect' domestic groups (Islamic, Arab-American lobbying groups, etc.) can figure its being done to them. There's no big secret needing to be kept.

What would endanger 'security' is that this technology is also being used for domestic surveillance for political and even economic reasons (i.e. industrial espionage). The security it would endanger is the current administration's ability to remain out of prison.

Re:Pure B.S.

[tgatliff]

I disagree.. What ould endanger 'security' is willfully violating the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights longterm.... I understand the security concerns, and they have a valid point, but they must work within our Bill of Rights...

It is not a big secret understanding what they want. They want to monitor all communications in the US, and be flagged when the system finds things they are looking for. They have wanted this for a long time, even before this administration, and was the whole reason of the original Echelon Network design. Meaning, for the rest of the world they have been monitoring traffic for some time, but were prevented from doing so to its own US citizens. Now they want this power and think that they can justify it by using the 'terrorist' angle...

Wait, what?

[rewt66]

Did they just argue that they haven't admitted that they were doing it, but they can't talk about doing it because it would threaten national security? Um, hello? First, it's true that you're not supposed to be able to sue on a hypothetical situation. SCO aside, there's supposed to be a real issue before you can sue. But the government seems to be saying that they have to admit to the wiretapping before they can be sued for it. IANAL, but I don't believe that's how it works, not even for the federal government. Second, maybe "we can't talk about it" is precisely why they haven't admitted it? So, maybe, not admitting it doesn't mean a thing? I hope and expect that the judge can see right through this rubbish...

Locking everyone up would be good for security...

[Kazoo the Clown]

... a thought which should be enough to illustrate that the argument "would endanger national security" is pure nanny-state. "If you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?" Government by neo-facist paranoiacs, that's what. People are trying to kill them, sure, but their behaviour is that of cowards and bullies, the likes of which have been known to do a lot of damage.

So wait...what about Yahoo

[torkus]

Ok. So Yahoo follows Chinese law and provides information to the chinese gov't ... and gets sued in US courts. Then people cry FAIR...saying Yahoo should know to obey 'international human rights' nonsense.

Yet VZ follows the mandate of it's OWN gov't who i guarantee have the most weight in determining 'international human rights' and winds up in court. Then the DOJ is looking to have the lawsuit dropped?!

So wait.

China forces a company to provide private info to 'out' a journalist per a LAWFUL (in china) request = BAD

Verizon willingly cooperates with secret requests (of highly questionable legality) to not only provide information on-hand but actively seek out and CAPTURE information (i.e. wiretap) for the *US* gov't = GOOD??

I know we're 'holier than thou' but seriously...can anyone in their right mind justify the disparity? I mean, without resorting to 'because we said so' like my parents used to when I was 6.

Independence of the Courts?

[SirGarlon]

It seems to me for the executive branch to demand a lawsuit be dismissed is meddling in the independence of the judiciary and violating the Constitutional separation of powers.

Oh, wait, I forgot "activist judges" are supposed to be a bad thing. Never mind about that separation of powers rubbish, then.