Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance

Posted by timothy on from the gotta-know-when-t'-holder dept.

coolnumbr12 writes with this IBTimes excerpt: "The Justice Department may soon be forced to reveal a classified document that details unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. The Justice Department has fought to keep the document secret for about a year, but a recent court order demands that they respond to a formal request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation by next week, June 7, 2013."

30 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. All hail by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the EFF !

    exit vikingpower

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:All hail by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      especially after reading: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware?currentPage=all

      Seems like they'll stop at nothing to catch their man, even if it means turning us into a police state.

    2. Re:All hail by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why would you expect the Republicans to be our watchdogs? They are just as much a part of the problem as the Democrats.

      The who rotten mess of post-9/11 needs to be swept away. DHS, TSA, Patriot Act etc.

    3. Re:All hail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't seriously expect republicans to be watchdogs over things like this. While they claim to want small government, they simply offer a different kind of big government than democrats; that is, one that starts wars at every opportunity, spies on its citizens, and makes exception after exception for large corporations. Of course, democrats have some things in common with them, but they're both just trash that can't be trusted.

    4. Re:All hail by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      you don't really understand politics do you?

    5. Re:All hail by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, they both spend too much.

      But Republicans want to spend on wars in foreign countries.
      Democrats want to spend on 'helping' Americans.

      I don't like either, but since I have to take one, I'll take the latter.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:All hail by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is very true. It seems to go kinda like this:
      Republican: National security is at risk, we must curtail civil rights!
      Democrat: Hey you can't take people's rights away like that....you have to do it like this...then you can get everything you want AND prosecute anyone who leaks on it
      Republican: Ok Deal.
      Democrat: Now lets raise taxes to pay for it
      Republican: Not so fast, how about we backdoor a tax hike to make it look like something else, and make sure we can shield ourselves and our friends
      Democrat: Ok deal.....oh and we can fight about it and suck up all the air time so nobody talks about civil liberties
      Republican: Now you are getting it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:All hail by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kinda sad when people cringe at helping other people...

    8. Re:All hail by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'helping' isn't always helping.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:All hail by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most frightening words in the English language, "We're from the government and we're here to help."

    10. Re:All hail by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Lack of fear?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:All hail by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?

      Well, the crystals wouldn't be any LESS effective. Why not?

    12. Re:All hail by Wookact · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if thats what those tornado victims are thinking.

    13. Re:All hail by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

      But Republicans want to spend on wars in foreign countries.
      Democrats want to spend on 'helping' Americans.

      Are you fucking joking, trolling or high?

      Seriously it has to be one of those options because if anything, Democrats have proven themselves to be as bloodthirsty as Republicans.

      And before I get off topic on my rant, do note that the Bush era fuckwad who signed off on GWB's warrantless wiretapping and torture policies, is Obama's pick to head the FBI:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/james-comey-fbi-bush-nsa

      Then what shall we talk about with respect to Obama:
      Should it be his war on the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment. His war on whistleblowers? Or just plain old war. Like tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan or conducting war with Libya without any congressional approval (goodbye War Powers Act, that little bit of post Viet Nam sanity designed to get us back to how the constitution says war is to started). Should we talk about how Obama tried to extend the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq beyond the Dec 2011 expiration, failed, and as result pulled out the troops (and you fucking DNC hacks give him credit for ending Iraq when what he did was fail to extend it).

      Maybe we should talk about Obama's opposition to the International Treaty to ban cluster bombs.

      Maybe we should talk about how aggressively Obama has used the State Secrets Doctrine to shield torturers and those who spy on Americans. Maybe we should talk about why Obama as a candidate railed against NDAA, but recently cajoled Congress to pass it without any modifications, such as general estimate of how many Americans are illegally spied on.

      WHATEVER. You fucking Democrat asshats are the biggest bunch of hypocrites around. Your ONLY reason to exist is to normalize the executive power grabs and constitution destroying behavior of the GOP. The entire country would be better off if you collectively had a heart attack and died, because then a real opposition to the GOP could evolve. Your ilk though, you're all talk and all back stabbing.

      Democrats: The New GOP. Fresh face, same shit.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    14. Re:All hail by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6

      Then there is the whole issue of their fake fights. Someone first pointed it out to me a few years back. Chart the minimum wage over time against inflation. You will find that it follows inflation on a long term average. Everyone who watches the issue knows this. However, congress wont just bake it in because, every few years it gives them an excuse to drag it out and beat the drums.

      The Republicans beat the "too expensive to do business" drum, and the money flows into their coffers from all manner of group against raising the minimum wage. Employers all over the country are falling all over themselves to throw money at the GOP.

      The Democrats beat the "workers are hit hard" drum, and labor unions, and all of their associated groups fall all over themselves to throw money a the Democrats.

      Then in the end....they all "grudgingly agree" to do what they all knew was going to happen from the start....and put the issue away for the next few years until they can dust it off and do it all over again.

      Thing is, you see it everywhere. Abotion? ever noticed how often anti-abortion laws blatantly violate Roe V Wade? Ever wonder, why professional lawmakers, people who have had time to study the system and work with it, would propose something that they know can't survive? Fact is, the public's opinion of abortion is a near 50/50 split, and hasn't changed in while. Perfect issue for them.

      Propose a law, knowing it will never have to be implemented seriously for more than a few weeks. Money starts rolling in to both sides. Law gets passed, law gets struck down, pro-life and pro-choice groups both see a huge windfall.

      Then, they take the budget, come up with an agreement, but call it a sequester, really tiny fractional cuts in the increase in discretionary spending, coupled with a small tax hike, thats all it was. They agreed to it, but structured it so they could pretend to disagree and "try to avoid it" for months, then blame each other when it "hit".

      But that isn't really how they deal, thats just how they suck up all the air.

      For the deals, look at how the PATRIOT act got passed or renewed. Look at how FISA courts got gutted and how the torture program went unprosecuted. They make deals all the time, they just don't talk about those deals.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    15. Re:All hail by BranMan · · Score: 2

      So the Police/FBI are kind of like opportunity - they only knock once

                  BAM!

    16. Re: All hail by afidel · · Score: 2

      So are the churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses going to rebuild all the homes that weren't insured or where the insurance company finds some way to weasel out of their responsibility? Are they going to rebuild all the shattered infrastructure? Any Libertarian that doesn't see a place for government in a disaster is an Anarchist by another name.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  2. google cache by xtronics · · Score: 2

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ibtimes.com/secret-court-document-finds-spy-techniques-unconstitutional-justice-department-fights-keep-it-hidden

  3. Thank you EFF by intermodal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The justification for "classifying" information is pretty much lost on people working in government these days. Keep up the good work, EFF! This classification of government crimes against the constitution nonsense has to stop.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  4. Re:Already Slashdotted... by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody got a copy to post?

    Sure! [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] by [REDACTED] [REDACTED] suck [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] hamburger [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] turbine [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Joshua Tree [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] feces.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Surprised? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.

    Sometimes I'm amazed at how much blatantly fucked, unconstitutional shit these assclowns manage to get away with... then I remember: bread and circuses.

    Fuck.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Surprised? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.

      That makes perfect sense. Who would know better then himself about the crimes he did not commit?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Re:Already Slashdotted... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary: That such a ruling about unconstitutional activity exists is all that's publicly known. The methood of spying was ruled unconstitutional, but has not been revealed.

    The EFF is currently suing to force revelation of the unconstitutional method. Next court step: government has until June 7 to respond why it should remain secret.

    Note this is separate from the subject or topic of the spying.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  7. Executive Order...wait for it.... by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    in 3...2...1...here it comes...

    "President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."

    Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  8. Re:Already Slashdotted... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    The incident in question was about 20 months ago, and the ruling, as OP says, was about a year ago. Some months back a congressman revealed the ruling existed, but nothing else since the ruling itself was classified.

    It was the method of data collection that was important and ruled unconstitutional. Obviously, We The People want to know what the government did, specifically the method of spying that it abused, and not the persons or subject matter.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. If only... by istartedi · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only we had another department. A department that could bring justice to these rogue agencies. We could even have a separate one for each agency. For DoJ, We'd call it "The department of justice justice department". Of course it would only be a matter of time before it became corrupt. That's why it would be overseen by a department of justice justice department justice department. And after that? The Department of Turtles, which is all the way downtown.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:If only... by dbc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, what needs to happen is a few senators need to clone Chuck Grassley's spine and attitude. That is what congressional oversight is all about.

  10. The IRS is going to audit the EFF . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . "audit", with "extreme prejudice" . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  11. Re:Already Slashdotted... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yo Dawg!

    I heard you like [REDACTED] so we [REDACTED] some [REDACTED]in your [REDACTED] so you can [REDACTED].

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. Privacy and freedom versus safety by turp182 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This could impact national security. It could inform those who would attempt to do us harm about which communications are being monitored and potentially how.

    But, this is America. I want privacy and freedom over security.

    A man name Franklin once said:
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

    I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly (defining privacy and boundaries).

    But the 4th Amendment to the Constitution does a pretty good job and is pretty clear when it comes to the government (Facebook is another story):
      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.

    A judge has opined that there have been breaches of the Constitution. We the People, deserve to see the document in question.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com