Slashdot Mirror


EFF Tells Court That the NSA Knowingly and Illegally Destroyed Evidence

An anonymous reader writes in with this latest bit of EFF vs NSA news. 'We followed the back and forth situation earlier this year, in which there were some legal questions over whether or not the NSA needed to hang onto surveillance data at issue in various lawsuits, or destroy it as per the laws concerning retention of data. Unfortunately, in the process, it became clear that the DOJ misled FISA court Judge Reggie Walton, withholding key information. In response, the DOJ apologized, insisting that it didn't think the data was relevant — but also very strongly hinting that it used that opportunity to destroy a ton of evidence. However, this appeared to be just the latest in a long history of the NSA/DOJ willfully destroying evidence that was under a preservation order.

The key case where this evidence was destroyed was the EFF's long running Jewel v. NSA case, and the EFF has now told the court about the destruction of evidence, and asked the court to thus assume that the evidence proves, in fact, that EFF's clients were victims of unlawful surveillance. The DOJ/NSA have insisted that they thought that the EFF's lawsuit only covered programs issued under executive authority, rather than programs approved by the FISA Court, but the record in the case shows that the DOJ seems to be making this claim up.'

52 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) Is posting AC really Anonymous?
    2) Has Slashdot ever received a FISA letter?

    1. Re:Dear Slashdot by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they have. Nothing you do on the Internet is anonymous.

    2. Re:Dear Slashdot by Kufat · · Score: 2

      HTTPS isn't "not more secure than your ISP." It's not more secure than the worst trusted root CA. In the absence of a CA compromise, your ISP cannot MitM HTTPS or other SSL-based protocols without your browser/client warning you about it.

  2. Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario. So I agree with the EFF. Destroying evidence = automatically guilty of accusations. Have a nice day.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In addition to the court stipulating that whatever the EFF had claimed the evidence said: everyone down the chain of management that was responsible for knowingly ordering destruction of evidence involved with their case, should be criminally prosecuted personally, (or impeached, if a cabinet official or elected official).

    2. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario. So I agree with the EFF. Destroying evidence = automatically guilty of accusations. Have a nice day.

      The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish? Ok, the court rules that they illegally spied on US citizens. They tell the NSA that they have to stop doing that. The NSA says, "fine - we were never doing it in the first place, and we'll continue to not do it." Then they keep doing what they've been doing all along, which they define as not being illegal spying by whatever contortions they apply.

      It isn't like the court is going to make somebody go to jail if the law is broken. If YOU spy on somebody illegally you'll get locked up for it. If the government does it, well, I guess the rules just must not have been clear enough.

    3. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 5, Informative

      In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario

      That is exactly what is supposed to happen, it is called spoilation of evidence and is very frowned upon. The penalties are supposed to include inferring that the missing evidence is beneficial to the opposing party and civil and criminal penalties against whomever destroyed the evidence. Though I doubt that will happen in this case.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    4. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No the logical rule is that purposefully destroying is the crime, neither proving nor disproving the crime related to that evidence and the originating accusation. However, the penalty applied for the destruction of evidence is the crux of the matter, in destroying the evidence of a crime the penalty should be more severe or treated as if it was the maximum possible infringement of the accused crime. The is to motivate people to preserve the evidence so that everyone knows what is going on and government and society can react to the breach on order to take step to repeat it's repetition. In destroying evidence of a crime, you are destroying the ability of society to take corrective measures and thus it affects the whole of society, well beyond those directly affected in the actual breach of law. It will also make it a pretty stupid act to destroy evidence of a lessor crime than the one you were accused of.

      The whole principle of a public trial is so that everyone can know what is going on. That any claims are proven, that actions of government are substantiated, when it does the accusing and when it is the accused. It is not about simply mindlessly punishing people. It is all about what happened, why it happened, what can be done to remediate it and how it can be prevented in future.

      Take for example the worst most heinous possible criminal. Simply executing them based upon a confession is completely and utterly pointless. Knowing exactly what they done, how they done, proof of this to ensure no guilty party goes free whether as a result of a false confession or those associated with the crime. This helps to gain knowledge to reduce the chances of repetition of the crime. Just like keeping the perpetrator alive as a subject of medical research, genetics, psychological and future pharmacological research associated with prevention of that crime, so not just about being able to release them if they are latter proven innocent. Those who commit the worst crimes are the most valuable research tools in order to prevent those crimes that they committed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?

      For years the courts have been throwing out cases because "you can't prove anything" meant that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
      If the court stipulates that the plaintiffs were spied on, then they have standing to sue, and the case can move forward.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?

      Let me ask you a question: Do you really and truly believe that taking no action will make things better, worse, or will the corruption remain the same? In the best case scenario, things remain the same (being illegal and unconstitutional). Historically however, inaction more often results in things becoming worse. Inaction never results in things improving, at least for the recipients of the abuse.

      Many constitutional rights violations are felonies. Convicted felons can not hold a security clearance and can not work for an agency such as the NSA in any capacity. Other agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, do have jobs that do not require a clearance, but depending on the job classification can (and often do) restrict convicted felons from filling those positions.

      Any cabinet member can be impeached by Congress, and the reasons for impeachment include misdemeanor offenses. In other words, Congress can remove the head of the NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, etc... by vote. The primary motivation for impeachment is very sensitive to issues of Constitutional violations (see this for a reference).

      The false analogy you provide, of "no punishemtn" or "go to jail" is simply not true. Being banned from working a career you have spent your life doing is a punishment, as is being barred from holding jobs or offices in the future, loss of retirement, etc...

      We would probably agree that the punishment may not be severe enough. If you believe that doing nothing is a better answer, you are not thinking very clearly. Exactly why do you think we have numerous historical quotes from people telling you to take action? Like Martin Niemöller

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the
      Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

      or Edmund Burke

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

      All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  3. And nothing will be done. by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The NSA could admit that they break the law every day of the week, murder Americans on american soil, steal millions of dollars, destroy companies and even the entire economy, and do you know what will happen?

    Absolutely nothing.

    They believe they are above the law. And heck, most of the legislative branch believes they are above the law. The judicial and executive branches are more than willing to look the other way, so as a result, the NSA gets a free pass to do whatever they want.

    Because.... national security... and boogyman terrorists... and something, something mumble mumble. Whatever the fear flavor of the week is. 1984 was an instruction manual.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:And nothing will be done. by mfh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oligarchies are a funny animal. If you are 99% of the people you do anything like NSA does and you die alone in a prison cell or you're shot point blank. 1% of NSA affiliated members can do any of it and it's "national security".

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    2. Re:And nothing will be done. by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Re Absolutely nothing.
      You now know what your courts, political leaders, lawyers, tame press, trusted brands and top academics have fully supported, funded, not wanted to understand or just let happen.
      What can you do as a customer?
      Reconsider just consuming the brands that fooled generations. Go out and find other, better US brands. From that chat app, email account, operating system, hardware, software, telco, crypto course.
      When you buy your next lcd, rethink the brand on the bezel covering that lcd.
      Why support the brands that decrypt all the time, every time. Take your free time back, expert skills from their branded support sites and redirect your wisdom to other products and services.
      No more 3rd party forum help, no more hype for their next product.
      You have to use what you have to use in many situations but you still have the freedom to change your personal tech selections.
      Tell people why you no longer supporting some trusted brands. Tell people why your are now supporting another brand.
      Sit back and enjoy as the front groups, sock puppets, PR experts spin up color of law quotes to reshape and redefine their brands pasts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:And nothing will be done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      If you actually give a damn about the concepts of liberty and equality, you should be prepared to give your life for them. Same as any belief you actually hold. Otherwise, you're just posturing.

    4. Re:And nothing will be done. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One minor complication, of course: accruing points for authenticity may be virtuous; but it isn't very useful.

      In fact, given that 'security' is the ubiquitous justification of these sorts of programs, most attempts to 'refresh the tree of liberty' will just show up as talking points next time the NSA wants a budget increase, or feels like arguing that the rules against domestic surveillance are compromising its effectiveness.

      Yes, it sounds all Serious and tough-minded to tell the chatterers that if they aren't fighting at the barricades, they are just whiners; but it ignores the fact that resistance can be worse than useless. In the case of 'national security' apparatus, violence that fails to leave them burned to ashes, and their toadies decorating the lamp posts of the capital, simply makes them look more legitimate and necessary. Since that level of force is unlikely to be a DIY project, you will, at very least, need to reach the level of whining where it becomes a group effort, or where alternate means become available.

  4. The Future by jmd · · Score: 2

    Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
    Won't be nothing
    Nothing you can measure anymore
    The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
    has crossed the threshold
    and it has overturned
    the order of the soul - Leonard Cohen "The Future"

    These are not isolated events anymore. Everything is being turned upside down.

  5. Frightening by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Interesting
    To all of you government surveillance apologists: doesn't it really frighten you that these guys routinely don't follow the law and get away with it? It scares the shit out of me. These people have the power to destroy you and everything/everyone that you love, and they seem to have nothing guiding them but their gut feel. How do you know they won't mistake your kid for a terrorist? Or bust down your door in the middle of the night tossing a flash-bang into your kids crib?

    These fucking people are out of control and need some serious jail time.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    1. Re:Frightening by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The law says it's perfectly legal for NSA to destroy evidence that would compromise national security if revealed in a civil court.

      So the NSA gets to decide which evidence could impact national security of course, and pretty much all of it impacts national security so there is effectively no oversight. So pretty much the NSA operates as an unchecked branch of the government.

      You apologist are many things: cowards, shills, etc. Patriots you are not. You are undermining our democracy (however much we have left).

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:Frightening by meerling · · Score: 2

      "The law says it's perfectly legal for NSA to destroy evidence that would compromise national security if revealed in a civil court."

      NO IT DOES NOT
      The law does cover some procedures and methods to allow the court to review the evidence without making it public.
      IANAL and even I know that.

      So, are you just ignorant or a duplicitous shill?

  6. Re:So... to summarise: by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

    The preservation order overrides any policies and destruction rules.
    They knew that to destroy those records was both illegal and obstruction.
    As to fishing expedition, apparently the judge didn't think so.

  7. Re:So... to summarise: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The destruction of that data is required by law.*

    *only when it conveniently helps the government.

  8. Re:So... to summarise: by pitchpipe · · Score: 3, Insightful
    - EFF, 2014

    Go destroy some evidence in a case against you where a judge has ordered you to preserve it. Let me know how that works out for you. The NSA will get away with it. You'll be asking Bubba to make sure he uses some lube.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  9. Re:the dog ate my homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it seems to work for President Obama too.

  10. Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this is a troll, but people would do well to remember that being unable to hold the government accountable for their actions is a much greater threat to national security than any outside entity could muster against the people.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  11. Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim by Drishmung · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Keeping the US safe is a clear and compelling interest that takes priority over a measly civil claim.

    Ah, yes, "The ends justify the means". The trouble with that is that the means determine the end. If your means are corrupt, lawless and arbitrary, just what sort of outcome do you expect?

    I believe this has been discussed previously: Matthew 7:16, 1 Samuel 24:13, Matthew 12:33, Luke 6:43, James 3:12

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  12. Re: So... to summarise: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish more people weren't willing to put up with their government breaking the law. We should be up in arms about shit like this because it decays the very foundations of this country.

  13. Re: the dog ate my homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nah, he just read about the dog eating his homework in the news the next day.

  14. Re:the dog ate my homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nah, he just read about the dog eating his homework the next day. Found out with the rest of us

  15. Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    That "measly civil claim" is the US Constitution. The US Constitution vs new lines and added paragraphs adding extra "national security" color of law?
    If any gov can just say evidence does not exist, that no court can see it, that no paper work can be found - the legal system stops for an entire cadre of gov workers.
    How long before more gov agencies, bureaucracies and well connected contractors try the same color of law trick? All they have to do is spin up a "national security" story and at a federal level, state or city level your access to any court is reduced to a very expensive request?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim by krashnburn200 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Colossians 3:22

  17. Re:So... to summarise: by dnavid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The destruction of that data is required by law. EFF tried to go on a fishing expedition.

    Both the FISA court and Federal court eventually decided that the NSA was both allowed to, and required to, preserve information relevant to the ongoing cases, and the NSA both knew this and also eventually advocated for this position. See: https://www.techdirt.com/artic....

    Court-ordered legal discovery also has force of law and would supercede any legal requirement to destroy information by plaintiffs or defendents.

    And the DOJ did not assert the EFF was on a "fishing expedition"; it argued that it misunderstood the scope of discovery, and would not have destroyed the information in question if it did (which seems highly improbable given the circumstances).

  18. Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I agree with all of the leaks and believe their foreign spying was immoral.

    What about the bandwagon fallacy that many authoritarians spew forth in an effort to justify the spying? "Everyone is doing it, so it's okay!" Well, no, it's not, because everyone has rights, and we shouldn't violate even the rights of foreigners without a damn good reason (i.e. evidence that they're enemies).

  19. Since when has this been a legal defense? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Tell you what Federal Government... if you consider this a defense against destroying evidence, then certainly you'd be okay with lowly citizens that are supposed to be EQUAL to you before the law to use the same defense when you bring us to trial...

    Right? Or are we the only ones that have to follow the rules?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  20. Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim by Drishmung · · Score: 2

    True. The NSA, as a government agency, is obliged to follow the rules, in spirit as well as letter. Well said.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  21. Re: So... to summarise: by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the fuck aren't you, if you think it's such a good idea? You want the meat, you butcher it your own goddamn self. Whining that something should be done, but isn't, and insinuating that you're not doing it yourself == makes you a useless tool. Grow a fucking pair and stand behind your beliefs or shove it.

    Because if one or two people that are fed up act on it and they get brushed off, 20 people act up get sent to jail, 200 get still get sent to jail but get a dismissive blurb in the local paper, 2,000 they get pepper sprayed and leader charged with inciting riot, 20,000,000 get a senator or two to half heartedly admit there might be an issue that might need looking into and never do anything substantive, It takes a critical mass to effect change

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  22. Re:So... to summarise: by qeveren · · Score: 2

    That's... sort of how it works, but not exactly. Depending on the jurisdiction involved, this leads to 'spoilation inference', where the destroyed evidence is considered 'conscience of guilt' and the court will consider the destroyed evidence as strongly against the spoiling party.

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  23. Donate to the EFF! NOW!!! by cpm99352 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to financially support the NRA, under the assumption that they defended the 2nd amendment. A while age I realized that was not actually correct,

    The EFF is the best example of an entity that defends *all* amendments. I now financially support them, every month. When NPR comes begging for money I'm happily able to refuse, secure in the knowledge that EFF is far more effective in their use of funds than NPR when it comes to presevring the Constitution.

    There are a ton of relatively affluent people here on Slashdot. It certainly wouldn't hurt you to allocate a small amount of money to EFF annually, and we know their results.

    1. Re:Donate to the EFF! NOW!!! by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 2

      I donate every month as well. You've got to feed our troops. :)

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
  24. The dog has eaten the Constitution by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If that dog only ate your homework the consequence is limited between that dog and you

    But in the reality is that the dog, aka, the Government of the United States of America, has eaten the Constitution

    The Constitution of the United States of America used to be the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND, used to be , no longer, because the way that motherfucking dog is behaving, it not only ignores the Constitution, it goes directly AGAINST what the United States of America is all about !

    We call ourselves a "democracy", we call ourselves "the land of the free, home of the braves" ?

    Well ... the only FREE thing is the freedom of that fucking dog in destroying the country, and the BRAVERY of the government to LIE UNDER OATH !!

    It's not that I like to swear, it's not that I enjoy using vulgar words, but as an American, I simply can't stand any longer what is going on !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:The dog has eaten the Constitution by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You still have the freedom to be brave and bash your government and the government has the freedom to bash your head for it.

      Spoken by an Anonymous Coward.

      There's being brave and then there's being suicidal.

      The United States of America had many Anonymous Cowards who agitated for Freedom. They were anonymous - or pseudonomous - because they wanted to be able to keep on saying it instead of saying it once, dying, and having no further voice in the matter. Some had to flee the country entirely.

      Of course, we are much more civilized today, and we'd never see anyone have to flee just because they spoke up for freedom and the Constitution now.

    2. Re:The dog has eaten the Constitution by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 2

      He's talking about Thomas Paine.

    3. Re:The dog has eaten the Constitution by Desler · · Score: 2

      Your definition of democracy is only of one type known as "direct democracy". There are also semi-direct and representative democracy variants. There is much more nuance than you make it seem.

  25. You have some VERY confused ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I used to financially support the NRA, under the assumption that they defended the 2nd amendment. A while age I realized that was not actually correct"

    Um, no... the NRA is still the only organization that FIGHTS for the 2nd amendment. Gun Owners of America IMHO is a fig leaf for people who want to claim they care about the 2nd while being ineffectual in doing it. I personally wish there was an NRA-equivalent (that had members of the House and Senate quaking in their boots) for EACH of the 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights. For example, we need a well-funded RUTHLESS grass-roots organization dedicated to JUST the 4th amendment that will tolerate NO politician who would support ANY search of a person, his home, his papers (information, "meta" or not) and his "effects" (other possessions) that would be comitted without a specific narrowly-drawn sworn-out under-oath search warrant. The NRA should NOT be the only organization with that zeal for the constitution and the 2nd amendment should NOT be the only amendment that has such a zealous supporter. And, no - the ACLU is not there for any of that (they get all tangled-up in favorite left-wing social and fiscal causes, let their politics drive them to weighing whether to enter any particular fight over any particular amendment, and have been far too willing to go mushy on the 1st and 2nd when their left-wing friends are stomping on them.)

    "...the knowledge that EFF is far more effective in their use of funds than NPR when it comes to presevring the Constitution. "

    Yikes! NPR is government-run pro-government propaganda; they're NO example of ANYTHING positive - the equivalent of Pravda, or some Goebels-run outfit. The American left USED to shout slogans AGAINST "the man"... now the left that used to burn draft cards and THINK the evil federal government MIGHT be spying on it, turns to the central government for EVERYTHING (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, news, entertainment, etc.) even KNOWING that government is spying on them! So much for things like "never trust anyone over 40" and "Hey Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?". If the government resumed the draft today, I suspect there'd be a lot of left-wing Obama supporters who'd SUPPORT the draft and turn-in anybody trying to escape to Canada!

    NPR should NEVER have been created in the United States, should never have been funded or licensed, and should have been shut down long ago. For all you left-wingers who love it (thereby exposing just how completely left-wing it has become while funded by ALL taxpayers) you should ask yourselves a serious question: Would "Air America" have survived and been forced to become better and more-competative if NPR had not been there as a place for liberal listeners to go to? That's the free market, and IF liberal ideas really ARE good, then they should succeed and prosper in such a market. Without NPR (which, as a government mouthpiece, has to live within certain bounds) I'd bet a MORE liberal commercial radio network WOULD HAVE succeeded (and liberals on Capitol Hill would not always be having to fight for NPR funding and worry that the GOP might succeed in cutting it).

    1. Re:You have some VERY confused ideas by jelIomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Um, no... the NRA is still the only organization that FIGHTS for the 2nd amendment.

      They don't do a very good job of it. In fact, they seem to do a very good just of 'compromising' away rights. For instance, I believe the NRA said that it doesn't have problems with restricting people with criminal records, or people with mental health issues.

      If you take the position that the 2nd amendment means that modern weaponry is fine (Which I do.), then you can't arbitrarily decide that it doesn't protect certain weaponry that you find scary. Yet, many types of guns are banned, and certain people are forbidden from owning them. That's unconstitutional if you're using such an interpretation.

      and have been far too willing to go mushy on the 1st and 2nd when their left-wing friends are stomping on them.)

      I am aware that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment differs from ours, but when have they gone mushy on the 1st amendment?

      If the government resumed the draft today, I suspect there'd be a lot of left-wing Obama supporters who'd SUPPORT the draft and turn-in anybody trying to escape to Canada!

      Yes, typical hypocritical partisan hacks who don't give a shit about freedom. They exist on both sides. Another group that's pathetically hypocritical are those who say that they want small government and that the government is often incompetent and downright corrupt (So far, this applies to me.), but when it comes to things such as the NSA's mass surveillance, they say the government is full of perfect little angels who would never make mistakes or abuse their powers. Sickening.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:You have some VERY confused ideas by dwpro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I believe it's a fair reading of the 2nd amendment that the "well regulated militia" can be interpreted to not include folks who can be judged incompetent to own a weapon, though there should be due process on this decision. Even if such a provision did not exist, I would imagine other provisions would justify limited gun regulation. if the govt can take away your children for incompetence, surely they can take away your weapons. I agree with you on the modern weaponry question, however.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
  26. U.S. Marshals Seize Cops’ Spying Records... by eddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a new sneaky approach, less destructive but so far effective: U.S. Marshals Seize Cops’ Spying Records to Keep Them From the ACLU

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  27. Re: So... to summarise: by evilviper · · Score: 2

    Because if one or two people that are fed up act on it and they get brushed off, 20 people act up get sent to jail, 200 get still get sent to jail but get a dismissive blurb in the local paper,

    You're a fool for assuming that doing something to stop this, requires violent protests. That would be counterproductive, no matter how many people you have on your side.

    Meanwhile, those same 2,000 people, in a single congressional district, can swing the outcome of the vote. Even just the fear of that, will make the representative in question ready to do whatever your bidding... Including starting an congressional investigation into NSA's practices.

    Hell, with your proposed 2 million people, even with them only just voting the way you tell them, you would be the dictator of whatever the state, and would completely determine all the races for senator and house representatives in that state. You would single-handedly choose which Presidential candidate wins that state, which could be HUGE. You would have the heads of both the political parties, coming to your home on a regular basis, trying to find out what they can possibly say or do that month, to get you to vote for their side in the next election.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  28. Bad DOJ by Camael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And the DOJ did not assert the EFF was on a "fishing expedition"; it argued that it misunderstood the scope of discovery, and would not have destroyed the information in question if it did (which seems highly improbable given the circumstances).

    That is an unbelievably stupid argument by the DOJ. It's common sense that when the court orders you to preserve documents, you hold on to any documents which may remotely be affected at all. This is a clear cut case of contempt of court and ought to be prosecuted as such.

    The DOJ is setting a fine example for all other law abiding citizens out there. I expect to see more "I misunderstood the scope of discovery" excuses in forthcoming civil and criminal cases.

  29. Re: So... to summarise: by Camael · · Score: 2

    It takes a critical mass to effect change

    AC has a point, albeit somewhat crudely worded. You need a trigger to start the critical mass rolling. We might still have racial segregation today if Rosa Parks obediently gave up her seat when ordered to do so. Mahatma Gandhi did not have that critical mass when he started his Salt March, the march inspired many other to join him and later turned into civil rebellion.

    Of course its easier to say it can't be done, sit back and complain over the internet =)

  30. Re: So... to summarise: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shooting politicians will almost certainly effect change, but it most likely won't be the change that you're looking for.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  31. Re: So... to summarise: by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Informative

    It actually turns out to be very easy to do something about it:
    https://supporters.eff.org/don...

  32. Re: So... to summarise: by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

    Supporting EFF is a good start, I agree, but it's no magic solution. Remember, EFF's lawsuit about the NSA dragnet was completely stopeed in its tracks by the "state secrets" defense for YEARS, until Snowden's leak put the relevant info into the public domain, when it was finally allowed to proceed.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant