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.'
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.'
1) Is posting AC really Anonymous?
2) Has Slashdot ever received a FISA letter?
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
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.
These fucking people are out of control and need some serious jail time.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
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.
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.
it seems to work for President Obama too.
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
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.
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.
Nah, he just read about the dog eating his homework in the news the next day.
Nah, he just read about the dog eating his homework the next day. Found out with the rest of us
Colossians 3:22
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).
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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
It actually turns out to be very easy to do something about it:
https://supporters.eff.org/don...
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
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