Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues To Overturn Telecom Immunity
Mike writes "The title says it all — The EFF is suing to have the unconstitutional telecom immunity overturned. 'In a brief filed in the US District Court [PDF] in San Francisco, the EFF argues that the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law. [...] "We have overwhelming record evidence that the domestic spying program is operating far outside the bounds of the law," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it."'"
Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it.
This administration does what it wants, without repercussions. They've already done several things that go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They don't care, won't care, and have never cared about trifles like the founding documents of the country.
What will happen? W will claim executive privilege, file papers blocking the motion, then make looking at the papers illegal again citing executive privilege.
It's Orwellian, but that - or something equally bizarre - is what will happen. Count on it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Help us continue this fight: http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping
We've just opened a new page for student rates: http://www.eff.org/students
Third-party details on how EFF compares to other non-profit groups: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576
(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)
The problem is 49% of Americans don't understand what we fought for in the revolution, or in the World Wars. They thing that "fighting for freedom" means going to another country. They think freedom means more TV channels. They think it is okay for the government to ignore the constitution if there is a 1 in a billion chance it will stop another 9/11.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
(Unknown - attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
Right, I understand that the administration does what it wants ignoring the consitution, and I want to see them jailed for it. And I understand that telecoms were complicit in that. That's about all I know about the case right now.
It seems a bit different from someone driving the getaway car for a bank heist, if nothing else in scale of the crime. Have any laws been broken by the telecos? Is there a law saying that you must obey the constitution even when ordered not to by the government? There is a law against aiding and abetting someone who robs a bank, but I would imagine there's no law against aiding the president when he urinates on the constitution. Is it that they broke privacy laws without a proper warant?
It seems to me that if I were the owner of a telecom company, and some government agent or the president was telling me to turn over documents, I'd consult my lawyers, sure, but if they came back with "Uh... we really have no clue as to what you should do, there's not much precedent here..." then what? If this was a case of the executive branch saying "We passed this law that says you have to turn over these documents to us or you're going to jail, we don't need a warrant," what is the teleco supposed to do? Claim powers of judicial review, say the president is being unconstitutional, and no?
I'm sure most slashdotters know how painful that is!
...
No. No, we do not. I don't know where you got your ideas of the typical slashdotter's sexual activities, but they scare me.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Without a suit being filed, unconstitutional laws get to stay on the books, and they get enforced.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
> And so we get to a elect a new administration. One choice will trample our freedom from unauthorized search, the other will trample our freedom to own guns.
[citation needed]
Obama praised the Supreme Court ruling that found an individual right to own guns (as opposed to a right for state militias to own guns).
While I have had similar thoughts in the past, I can't necessarily find anything unconstitutional about this. Congress has offered immunity in the past for people who claim the Fifth Amendment while testifying, not to mention States Evidence mob trials. While I don't like it, it seems to kind of the opposite of Ex Post Facto. I am also not a constitutional scholar, and hate the idea that these guys can get off scott free, but there is precident to limitation of liability, which has seemed to be upheld in the past. Can someone please convince me constitutionally that I am wrong? I'd love to be in this case.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
This is Slashdot, and you did work in a car analogy.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
But i don't even know your real name, how will i find you? Oh well...
Slashdotters have sexual activities?
Maybe you mean Slashdotter's imagination?
McCain voted for the FISA bill. And Barack also voted for the FISA bill.
Meanwhile, McCain supports your 2nd Amendment rights. Barack says he supports them but has voted and advocated against them several times in the past.
Seriously. Who cares? Obviously not the ones that allowed the power mongering, the complete corruption. Definitely not the ones that ignored the warnings that this would happen. And certainly not me. Why? Because as a anarchist, I believe that government, no matter what form, is fundamentally corrupt. Now I don't advocate that we be government free. That would be impossible. Evolution has precluded that possibility by making us social creatures. I just acknowledge that all government eventually leads to totalitarianism. I'll be marked as off topic but I think this is extremely relevant. The power grabbing surprises me in only that it happened so quickly. I for one would love to see more of this happen. Because then the government will merely rot itself from within. And we will begin again.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- from the American Bill Of Rights
I live in Canada. Why do I know your constitution better than you?
I'll just invoke the American Politics version of Goodwin's Law here (hereafter the Nixon-Goodwin Law) and note that this kind of thinking was what prompted Nixon to push directly or indirectly (it is never quite clear how much he knew in advance) for the Watergate break-in and it's subsequent coverup. For Nixon the idea of losing the election was too much to bear.
Now W may not be so far gone as to think he can just refuse to leave but the idea that he or overzealous supporters (of the type Nixon had) might go to great lengths to see McCain in, the man Bush said would lead his legacy in Iraq, well that is different.
Note that I am not claiming McCain would do this or that it is being done. Nor am I claiming that other Republicans might not be horrified by it, There were Republicans who were, arguably, more angry with Nixon than others. Some of them such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had to wait a long time to get back into the Whitehouse (Cheney was then an aide and Rumsfeld a Deputy Secretary of Defense).
However When Nixon did it, angry as people were no mobs formed and noone swung from trees. Indeed some of the key players such as G. Gordon Liddy are out today and practicing politics once more.
More likely if nasty things occur and are discovered then some heads will roll but for those at the top they will, like Nixon, merely go home to be pardoned by their successor so that the nation "can heal".
Lets be honest. Steal small and you go to a supermax. Steal big and you merely go home to live off your ill-gotten gains as Nixon did.
...for what the Gov't told them to do is like blameing the gun manufacturer for any misuse by the Police.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I don't get...why do people on scream about this administration???? They have been doing this ever since the DAMN PHONE WAS INVENTED!!! Do you really think the people in power would let mass amount of people to talk about anything with out having an eye or ear on things??? Those who cry the loudest about unfair or illegal acts are just as guility cause they would do it too.
It's not so much the immunity that's the problem, it's that the immunity blocks access to records needed to find out just how extensive (and thus how unconstitutional) the operation was.
You better hope they have good luck. They're fighting for YOUR right to privacy and more importantly, that the law should be upheld. Even my conservative friends claim they believe firstly that the law is inviolate, so this is hardly even a partisan issue.
EVERY American should be indignant that their rights have been, and continue to be, illegally violated, with impunity. I'm even starting to feel sorry for y'all.
you had me at #!
Going after your criminal Government, do you?
That said, Obama/Biden might. In fact, it's your only chance.
you had me at #!
woooooooooooosh!
> And your gun will do what, exactly, against tanks and choppers?
You might want to ask a veteran of the Russian adventure in Afganistan how he feels about it. Yes, small arms vs a modern mechanized army will be a very asmetrical affair but as others have posted ya can't sit in a tank forever. And with a few small arms you have a much better chance of getting yer hands on some more fun toys.
But more important is the mental attitude. Armed men are citizens, disarmed ones are subjects. There is a reason every oppressive government makes removing arms from the civilian population it's first order of business from Stalin all the way back to ancient China.
Democrat delenda est
Can he simply write out pardons to all the Telecoms? I know the president can pardon individuals, but can he pardon organizations?
I have palpated cows before, and knowing their reaction, I find the ideas expressed in the parent rather frightening. Don't know, don't wanna know, and if I have to know, I want the knowledge passed by reference instead of by value.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
It was my understanding that from its inception, the charter of the NSA was to monitor all cross-border communications to and from the US. Period.
In the 1960's it was generally assumed that the NSA was listening in on all transatlantic phone calls. I don't see how anything has changed. When did the charter change? More to the point, when did they stop monitoring overseas communications?
Hint: I don't think they ever did stop.
What precisely do you think all that hardware at Ft. Meade is for? I would expect them to be monitoring all communications, especially those with countries that have significant numbers of people that seem to want to stir up trouble.
woooooooooooosh!
woooooooooooosh!
I've heard of John McCain and Barack Obama, but who is A & C?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
From Wikipedia: "The essential problem was posed by Plato in the Republic, his work on government and morality. The perfect society as described by Socrates, the main character of the work (see Socratic dialogue), relies on laborers, slaves and tradesmen. The guardian class is to protect the city. The question is put to Socrates, "Who will guard the guardians?" or, "Who will protect us against the protectors?" Plato's answer to this is that they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a "noble lie." The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."
Having moved back into civilian life, I realize that our country's founding fathers knew their shit. While a few are disillusioned, most learn soon enough.
-- Wondering how long until the internet becomes fully corporatist, like television.
If you can, send these guys a couple of bucks. If paid off politicians cannot be bothered to fight for our rights, then support the people who are. And make sure when your State Rep or Senator solicits for money that you tell them where you spent it instead of on them.
It's starting to sound like the Pit and the Pendulum in here...
Your brain is not a computer.
You fight the tyranny *before* it happens, through political means, so that you don't have to use that shotgun.
Indeed we should all fight tyranny before it happens.
But we should all be armed in case tyranny happens in any case.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I know the answer is 'B', but it should really be 'D', because McCain supported the bill, even though he didn't show up to vote for it (he didn't vote for several months during the campaign, until around the time of the economic crisis).
And Obama voted to remove the immunity provisions, but then gave a tactical yes vote because it was going to pass with or without him and he didn't need any more accusations about 'aiding terrorists'.
But you do have a point that no one stood up to it strongly enough and I truly lament that.
For everyone here bemoaning the fact that Bush and Congress have trampled on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution by passing the FISA bill, perpetuating the domestic spying program, and other related programs -- you should probably actually READ the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
:)
I know this comment is an hour or so late because I have to work during the day and don't wait to post on the next story as soon as it appears, but for those who do read it, take note:
No matter what people say, there is nothing written about privacy in the constitution!
Now, to clarify before I start a holy war, privacy is a complicated topic that did not exist in as a serious concern when the constitution was written. Privacy back then involved going inside your own home and locking your door. Privacy as a matter of law have generally been created by the courts over the past several decades. Judges not from the "strict interpretation" camp have argued that the right to privacy "emanates" from a conglomeration of articles and amendments to the constitution.
Translation: If you take various sections of the constitution and amendments, combine them together, and interpret them in a specific way you end up with the "right" to privacy (note that this is actually the basis of the argument underlying Roe v Wade).
So, the lesson is that you should not go on a rant (and moderators should definitely mod comments as "insightful" or "informative" that do) about invasions of privacy that "trample" on the rights given to us by the constitution. It makes you appear uneducated and uninformed. And I KNOW that slashdotters don't want that -- after all, if we don't have our reputation as know-it-alls, what else do we have to make up for our social shortcomings....
Oh, and to head off the likely rant after my comment (again if anyone reads it) I am not saying that a right to privacy is not important, only that it is not constitutionally protected at this time -- it is an invention of the judicial system and an example of judges writing law.
Your guns are useful to defend your freedom only when the government does not have that force multiplied eight thousand fold. And that's just for the one F-16.
The usual old saw, "guns can't compete with tanks".
Ask the Iraqis, Afghans, and Viet Cong about it.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
How does it rob customers of their right?
They can just sue who was responsible in the first place; why should the company following orders be responsible for crap they where instructed to do.
What good is the right to own guns if the gun owners let the government take away all their other rights?
This is another common argument against the right to keep and bear arms. The logic seems to be that since firearm owners are not standing up to the erosion of their liberties there is thus no reason for them to be armed.
One must bear in mind that having the means to resist tyranny does not guarantee the will to resist tyranny. Apathy is far more dangerous than not being armed, but this does not mean being armed as insurance against tyranny is not a good idea.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
When EFF eventually wins (as I believe they will, even if it takes some time), the government will just give the telecom companies $700 Billion so they can use the money of taxpayers to pay off the taxpayers after the class-action lawsuits.
Isn't American politics fun? Circle of life or some bullshit.
One US Attorney with Honor and Integrity could have Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld el. al. in custody for felony violations of 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 371, simply by convening a Grand Jury to hear the evidence.
If Federal Prison is good enough for Martha Stewart, isn't it good enough for W?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
My brother in law and one of my best friends are in the Army and neither of them think civilians should be disarmed. They think we should have MORE guns. Heck, it would make their jobs easier should some of our lenders call in their notes to our government.
You missed my point. Protecting the second amendment at the exclusion of the others is flat out insane if resisting tyranny is the point of the second amendment. Would you let someone rape your daughter so you can keep a gun to protect her from rapists?
Obviously not. But the question you asked was, "What good is the right to own guns if the gun owners let the government take away all their other rights?"
The implication here is that there is no good to the right to own guns if gun owners let the government take away all their other rights.
While one can never know what will be the spark to light the fires of rebellion, nor how many liberties we will forgo before resisting, arms must always be at hand so that resistance is possible should the collective will be summoned.
If the collective will is never summoned? Then the frog will boil. But it will not be for lack of means to resist.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I say "More power to the EFF!!!!!"
That is all I have to say. I have no intention of discussing this with anyone or arguing. That is my opinion, and it will not change.
Violent revolutions tend to become dictatorships.
I have heard this one before, too. The idea is that since revolutions historically have seldom resulted in a better situation than before the revolution, armed revolution is futile or bad.
I counter that if one is being oppressed to the point where violence is the only remaining viable option a people are right and just in such armed resistance no matter what the outcome of their resistance.
We cannot shrug off the right to armed resistance of tyranny for fear of the consequences.
I strongly recommend sticking to peaceful means.
Armed rebellion should always be the action of last resort. But we need to insure that we always have the means to resort to it if necessary.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I am not an American, nor even a lawyer, much less an expert of any sort on the American Constitution. But my understanding is that all rights not specifically allowed to the Government remain reserved to the people. In other words, the constitution is about the things that the government is allowed to do. If the government is not specifically allowed to do something, then it remains a right of the people not to have that a done. The Constitution does not "give you rights", at most it enumerates *some* of the rights you have. The fact that a particular right is not listed does not mean that you do not have it.
Quite apart from that, some aspects of privacy are certainly covered in the bit about search and seizure and remaining secure in their possessions. But for me at least, the fact that you allow unsupervised TSA agents to rifle through peoples luggage and steal stuff means that I will not be visting or even transiting you country in the foreseeable future.