Wikimedia Foundation Files Suit Against NSA and DOJ

jrepin sends along the news (excerpted from the Wikimedia Foundation's blog) that Today, the Wikimedia Foundation is filing suit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the United States. The lawsuit challenges the NSA's mass surveillance program, and specifically its large-scale search and seizure of internet communications — frequently referred to as "upstream" surveillance. Our aim in filing this suit is to end this mass surveillance program in order to protect the rights of our users around the world. We are joined by eight other organizations and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Comments

So this is what they use donations for

[Chrisq]

So this is what they use donations for. They should have collected a fund specifically for this, because some people will see the aim as unrealistic (in that they probably won't win and even if they did the NSA may carry on in secret) and some may think mas surveillance necessary

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Wootery]

I think you have a good point, but here's a relevant extract from TFA:

Privacy is the bedrock of individual freedom. It is a universal right that sustains the freedoms of expression and association. These principles enable inquiry, dialogue, and creation and are central to Wikimedia’s vision of empowering everyone to share in the sum of all human knowledge. When they are endangered, our mission is threatened. If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[facetube]

Counterpoint: when your government is deliberately sabotaging your organization's business-critical infrastructure, attacking your users without constitutional or meaningful judicial oversight, and devaluing your organization's reputation and trademark rights by implying your organization is a willing participant in all of this... you might see it as an existential threat.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[m.alessandrini]

I made donations because I like using their services, then I feel that they can do whatever they want with my (their) money.

Moreover, I think this issue is one of the most critical ones for the future of the world as we know it.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

Irony in somebody who effectively is saying privacy shouldn't be allowed posting anonymously?

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Pharmboy]

Utterly stupid. The ACLU is picking up the tab. The only reason Wikipedia is doing it is because the last case was thrown out for lack of cause, and the NSA has specifically mentioned Wikipedia, so they can prove damages are specific to them. In short, Wikipedia is the only group that CAN sue them and prove they were singled out, based on the actual words of the NSA themselves. This makes it 10x more likely the case will go the distance.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Phreakiture]

Maybe you could set a good example by identifying yourself? I doubt it, though.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Shakrai]

If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.

I suspect that the Wikipedia group think suppresses more contributions than any real or imagined fear of the NSA.

Glad they're using my donation for server costs though, which I believe was the headline the last time they pestered me for money. At least when my local PBS station begs me for money they spend it on things that are more than tangentially related to delivering the product that I use and love.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

No tribal culture had any.

Sure they did. Just ask the Type A male that's unknowingly raising the offspring of the Type B male that remained behind and took advantage of his fleeting moments of privacy to impregnate Type A's mate.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not.

This is a lawsuit being run by the ACLU, and this sort of thing is part of the ACLU's primary purpose though they have no actual standing to claim harm done by the NSA. Wikimedia Foundation is leading the suit because they have the best claim for harm done. As a nonprofit dedicated to the collection of knowledge, their purpose is directly harmed by mass surveillance and privacy denial, as TFA states.

Wikimedia are the persons of standing who have grounds to bring forth the lawsuit. Doesn't mean they're the ones footing the bill. It's quite likely they're paying very little and are simply persons of interest here.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

> and find the NSA to be too politically correct to be effective

So you could help destroy the ineffective NSA by donating to the Wikimedia foundation?

Just sayin'

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the Wikipedia group think suppresses more contributions than any real or imagined fear of the NSA.

That's a pretty good argument. Nearly one in four writers admit they are self-censoring due to surveillance, and that doesn't even include the number of readers who are afraid to research certain topics. Is your neighbor running his fan all night because he accidentally burnt an apple pie, because it was poker night and his friends brought cigars, or is the place about to burn down because he's cooking hash oil or meth? What would it smell like if he were doing either of the latter? Fucked if I know, I'm damned if I'm going to look those options up!

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[jythie]

Privacy is kinda like Responsibility, the rules are different because THEY actually need it.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Spamalope]

This makes it 10x more likely the case will go the distance.

Assuming the Gov't doesn't feel empowered enough to simply throw the suit out 'because screw you, what are you gonna do about it?', they'll win a CoIntelPro victory where 'that' intel program is shut down. Of course it's shut down by re-shuffling it's duties into a slightly different structure with new names. The wholesale warrant-less spying doesn't slow down for a moment. Those with the power to meaningfully reign it in are the biggest beneficiaries of what the NSA is doing.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[DNS-and-BIND]

You right-wing fuckbags just won't stop, will you? Obama can't do anything right, and you just keep blabbering on about it? If he walked on water you'd find a way to say it was blasphemous.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

I've spent the last 2 decades creating Islamic terrorists. FTFY

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[zarthrag]

This.

I *used* to lookup off-the-wall things. But consider this:

What if someone close to me, or not, died, and I was the last person who read information online about the manner in which they died? If someone commits suicide, and I recently looked it up. That could be "evidence" of a murder! Should I become a suspect, based on that alone?

What if, while in the course of designing a videogame, I looked up information about how weapons work? Everything from handguns to atom-bombs - for accuracy's sake? Do I deserve to be on a watchlist because I could be planning something?

Remember, parallel-construction is a thing. But don't click that link, or the NSAFBI routine might flag you.

This is likely going to get worse before it's better.

I am glad I donated, and hope they fight the good fight.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

An Internet search obviously couldn't tell you what something smells like.
And it's really paranoid to think that an innocent search on drug information will get from Google through NSA to your local law enforcement and result in your arrest.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Ed_Pinkley]

Sure they had privacy. You went into a field and made sure no one was around. Then, you talked privately. If you want to keep who you met with and how long you met private you did it at night.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Wootery]

But don't click that link, or the NSAFBI routine might flag you.

So link to the HTTPS version.

Not bullet-proof, but a step in the right direction.

Unrelated: I see Firefox's status-bar now hides whether a hovered-over link is HTTP or HTTPS. Anything in the name of dumbing-down, right Mozilla? Seriously...

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[m.alessandrini]

Exactly for me.

These are some topics I've always been curious about, just for the sake of knowledge, and not to endorse them in any way, and that I never looked up, not even on wikipedia, for fear of being "flagged" or whatever:

- pipe bomb construction. Is really that easy to build one as they do in movies? Should I be worried that any psychopath could build one?

- mein kampf. What was going on in that man's mind?

I could think of many other ones... And consider that I don't even live in America.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

Those that think mass surveilance is necessary, should explain that - and propose a law that will make it legal. Then, nobody will have a standing to sue over this. Of course, such a law will set some freedoms aside - so good luck getting elected while pushing this.

Note that megasurveillance is not really necessary. The old approach - arresting people after they do wrong works too. There is quite a historical precedent for that. On the other hand, the DDR proved the effect of mass surveillance - not much terrorism there. . .

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[all204]

To what end? 'They' can also click on that link to see what it's about. 'They' can also figure out what ip address the click came from, then it's short work to figure who is behind that IP address. HTTPS is not an anonymizer...

On the second point, I agree, that's a silly move from Mozilla.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

I wont argue the point that privacy is a new thing. Instead I will argue that privacy becomes a necessity the more the world becomes stratified. Tribal people always had the possibility of leaving and doing their own thing, tribal power is rather flat compared to the world we now live in. In a world where everybody knows their neighbors capabilities and desires and there exists no multinational corporations or superpowers privacy isn't so important. In the modern world there are corporate and political agendas that must be fought by people who have significant power disadvantages privacy is very important tool.

Re: So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm about as far from right-wing as you can get and couldn't agree more with facetube. Stop conflating government overreach with Obama-haters. These programs were put in place before his time and will continue to be perpetuated and expanded as long as we stand idly by, doing tangible harm to citizens and lawful private companies alike.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[facetube]

I voted for him twice, and have openly supported him on far more than half of his major policy decisions. Continuing to let a US military spy agency collect phone and internet records of the entire US population without a warrant or specific probable cause isn't one of the policies I support. You may recall that his original platform included limiting the ability of the US government to engage in broad warrantless domestic surveillance.

Political beliefs can be quite a bit more nuanced than picking your favorite animal, if you're willing to let them be.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Wootery]

'They' can also click on that link to see what it's about. 'They' can also figure out what ip address the click came from, then it's short work to figure who is behind that IP address.

What? If you click the HTTPS link, it's harder for a third-party observer (the NSA) to learn which Wikipedia article you're reading.

HTTPS isn't perfect for this though - as I understand it, it has no protection at all against a traffic-pattern sort of analysis (how many articles are there with exactly that number of bytes?).

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[sumdumass]

What link?

If you search through wikiedia using https that link should be rencrypted and not known unless either your computer or the server is compromised or they are using a mitm attack yo thwart the https. If you search through google and click on the link, well you know at minimum you are being watched for marketing reasons.

Anyway, other that google or some other sesrch engine, you will not be swept up in automated collection and filtering. Someone will have to spend some real effort on you if you are using https which is unlikely unless they are already looking at you.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[ShaunC]

This isn't about money, this isn't about closing down one specific named program. It's about raising awareness, for one, and about fighting for our rights in general. I'm behind that.

What I wish they'd do is make the situation more sorely obvious. They have the eyeballs and the screen real estate, and they used it once, back when the 2nd (I think) SOPA attempt was coming around. For all the times I've seen those slide-in banners talking about "Buy one programmer a cup of coffee," I wonder about the impact if those banners instead said "Your government is watching you read this article right now!"

I'm a middle-aged guy and I wind up on Wikipedia at least once a day, I know the younger generation is probably hitting it more frequently doing research for papers and assignments. Put it right in their face. That big yellow donation banner, but with substituted text for visitors from the US,

"Your government watches everything you do on the internet. Even your religious and church communications! Even your private Snapchats! This is unconstitutional. Complain loudly to your representatives today."

::shrug:: That's what I'd do.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Shakrai]

What if someone close to me, or not, died, and I was the last person who read information online about the manner in which they died? If someone commits suicide, and I recently looked it up. That could be "evidence" of a murder! Should I become a suspect, based on that alone?

This is at best a fundamental misunderstanding of how law enforcement actually works, at worst a total straw man.

1. The NSA doesn't concern itself with murder. The overwhelming majority of murders in the United States are handled at the State level.
2. Local law enforcement isn't going to put you on the radar because of a Wikipedia search. They won't even know about your search history unless you appear on their radar for other reasons and the investigation develops enough for search warrants.
3. If an investigation does progress that far and you have a search history that suggests a furtherance of the crime being investigated..... well, probably time to call a lawyer.

What if, while in the course of designing a videogame, I looked up information about how weapons work? Everything from handguns to atom-bombs - for accuracy's sake? Do I deserve to be on a watchlist because I could be planning something?

It takes more to get on a watchlist than Google searches. Watchlists are pointless if the signal to noise ratio is too low. Filling them with people who Googled atomic weapons design is self-defeating. Go ahead, click on the link, it's not going to pop up on a screen at NSA. As much as it may pain our egos, the lion's share of us are fat and unimportant.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Shakrai]

mein kampf. What was going on in that man's mind?

Mein Kampf can be found in virtually every library in the United States. I had assumed it was the same in every country that values free speech. You should read it; it's a painful slog of atrocious writing but it's an important read nonetheless.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think the idea is that while he probably wants the NSA reformed, he wants it reformed in a way opposite to the goal of this lawsuit.

Re: So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you use your actual name, or were you born with some bs moniker of phreakiture or whatever wgaf fu.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[tnk1]

And so what if they do flag you? Or me?

If the NSA is carrying out a dragnet operation on lookups, it is literally going to bring up millions of people who have looked up these things. Your one lookup would be barely worth the storage space that its taking up in some datacenter.

To even get close to noticed, you need to have significant correlation. The reality is that a wikipedia lookup isn't going to even be close to a membership on a board dedicated to discussing jihadi themes. Look at the people they are arresting. They aren't arresting people who looked things up on wikipedia, they're looking up people who sought out terrorist groups in a purposeful way. Oh yeah, and maybe they looked up something on a web site too.

While they may throw your wikipedia lookups at you in a prosecution, it is never going to be a primary cause for an investigation, let alone a prosecution. You could probably search weapons design, radical political theory, high value targets on wikipedia all day every day and you won't even rate an analyst assigned to you. Sign up on a jihadist board or something a little closer to that, and yes, welcome to the watch list.

I've looked up atomic weapons design on wikipedia fairly often. I could probably find enough knowledge to build a crude one. Knowledge isn't the problem, or Iran and North Korea would already have MIRV'ed ICBMs with fusion weapons in every warhead. You need rare and hazardous materials. You need high explosives. You need high quality and specialized production apparatus. You need the skill to operate said apparatus. You need power and space and environmental controls. Shall I go on?

No one believes you're going to build a nuclear bomb yourself because you look it up on wikipedia. No one believes you're a jihadist because you looked up what jihad is or related incidents. You need to do a bit more than use an encyclopedia.

I suppose I understand the Wikimedia Foundation's reasoning, but I will be so mad if they end up not having enough to actually operate the site itself someday because they decided to get involved in this sort of thing. Money I give to them is to maintain the knowledge and the service behind it. Threatening THAT is more dangerous to me than twenty NSA snooping programs, so I hope and presume that they've planned this appropriately. More to the point, I am not interested in giving to a political program in the guise of operating an encyclopedia.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy is kinda like Responsibility, the rules are different because THEY actually need it.

And who decides whether "they" need it? Them?
The public certainly would have a hard time deciding "they" need it when it's kept secret, right?
I need 10% of your income to do "stuff"... nope, can't tell you what, it's "secret stuff", but trust me, it's important... oh, ok, it's for my growing collection of inflatable Elvis figures, but like I said, it's "important" and "needed".

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes of course it can be found in every library, but privacy is much worse than internet there.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

'rein'. Like those things you use to steer a horse.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

To even get close to noticed, you need to have significant correlation. The reality is that a wikipedia lookup isn't going to even be close to a membership on a board dedicated to discussing jihadi themes. Look at the people they are arresting. They aren't arresting people who looked things up on wikipedia, they're looking up people who sought out terrorist groups in a purposeful way. Oh yeah, and maybe they looked up something on a web site too.

Today. What will they be looking for tomorrow?

I am a student of the past. I don't need to Godwin the thread about yellow stars and pink triangles. There was a time when it was perfectly legal to be an American or Canadian of Japanese descent. Until someone looked at the census data and decided it wasn't. I know of a time when it was perfectly legal to have a college education in Cambodia. Until someone decided it wasn't.

Closer to the present, I know of three states - Colorado, Washington, and Alaska - in which thousands of people are doing something that's perfectly legal (at least by state law) but is one executive order away from making their houses eligible for seizure. What's to say that the trend against Prohibition isn't reversed in the next Federal election?

My great-grandparents owned humans as chattel property. My grandparents rejected slavery, but once believed that interracial marriage was tantamount bestiality. My grandparents thought homosexuals were abominations unto their God. My parents and I eat meat. I see nothing wrong with owning a cute fuzzy cat as chattel property. Who are you, o traveler from the future, that you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that whatever it is you're looking up today will never become a political liability?

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

"Privacy is a Victorian invention. No tribal culture had any."

Absolute rubbish. People have had secrets for millennia and therefore there has been a requirement for privacy.

Secret religious ceremonies, secret weapon making techniques, people/groups wishing to overthrown a tyrant, nations invading other nations.
One example from ancient times ... http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/privacy-from-rulers-tents-of-ancient-israel-cell-phones-of-today/
There are plenty more examples if you take 3 seconds to look.

Spying is the second oldest profession on earth.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[Anonymous Coward]

They will not be getting any more money from me until I can be sure that it funds the operations of Wikipedia and not some political cause. They were doing a good enough job of changing the world for the better before they decided to waste money on a legal fight that they can't win and they can't win because even if they win one battle the rules will get changed so that their win becomes meaningless.

Re:So this is what they use donations for

[zarthrag]

This is, at best, a failure to understand what I said.

I mentioned parallel construction. Clearly you didn't understand:

http://www.reuters.com/article...

The NSA is free to pass that information to other, interested, parties. That includes State/local police/FBI/whomever. It invalidates every single point you just raised.

Waste of time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

The court will just decide — as others have before — that they don't have standing to sue. Because the spying programs are secret they cannot prove that they specifically have been spied upon illegally.

</cynicism>

Re:Waste of time and money

[Noah Haders]

I was going to post this. Wikimidia can't sue because the NSAIDs spied on the world. They need to show that NSAIDs harmed them before a suit can proceed. This standing issue is in the constitution.

Re:Waste of time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the evil spying program of NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs.

Re:Waste of time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

The article specifically addresses the issue of standing:

"The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures included a slide from a classified NSA presentation that made explicit reference to Wikipedia, using our global trademark. Because these disclosures revealed that the government specifically targeted Wikipedia and its users, we believe we have more than sufficient evidence to establish standing."

thrown out in 3...2...

[Anonymous Coward]

1...

wikimedia foundation cannot prove that they (the organization) has been spied upon (government will not offer evidence to prove it cuz 'national security') and even if they were they can't prove that it has hurt them. cases with more merit have been tossed. this one will be too.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[Noah Haders]

The good news here is that the aclu and eff are participating. These orgs are very savvy and wouldn't waste time on a suit with no chance.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[rudy_wayne]

The good news here is that the aclu and eff are participating. These orgs are very savvy and wouldn't waste time on a suit with no chance.

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[CaptainDork]

Fuck you.

Lawyers like you take the rest of us down with you.

Get a job more suited to your mental ineptitude.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[jc42]

The good news here is that the aclu and eff are participating. These orgs are very savvy and wouldn't waste time on a suit with no chance.

The bad news is that, even if the court allows the case to proceed, and they win, the NSA will simply ignore the court's decision and continue their work. They're above (or beside or in a parallel universe to) the legal system.

The only real way to fight them is to find ways to expose their activities to the rest of the world. There are some technical problems with doing this effectively, such as jailing or assassination of outside investigators.

(Is there a documented, verifiable case of any "secret" government organization being limited by the courts, in the US or any other country? Yes, I've read claims that it has happened. But note that term "verifiable". Someone writing an article claiming that it has happened isn't exactly verification. ;-)

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[TapeCutter]

Wish I had some mod points..

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[asylumx]

Yet you post AC so nobody can look at your own post history. Way to build credibility.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[Noah Haders]

the justice system moves slow, but when it gets moving in a direction it can sweep over a topic like a tsunami (eg a strong tide). think of gay marriage. There was no single block buster case. Instead, it was a progression, where in some states it was legalized, in other states it was illegalized. Everywhere it went to district courts, and some won and some lost. These filtered up to state supreme courts, again with a variety of rulings and justifications. Then, federal district courts ruled different ways. Finally, the supreme court has taken on a couple cases, that in aggregate, should settle the issue once and for all.

Prepare for a similar process here. There are some encouraging signs. SCOTUS has taken on two really big privacy vs. technology suits in the past couple years, and in both cases ruled unanimously (9-0) for privacy. police GPS trackers without warrants in 2010 I believe, and police searching cell phones without warrants in 2013 I believe. Also, a number of district courts are taking on the no fly system, and one in particular is doing a really great job of pushing through the states secrets claims that the fed is trying to make. (link omitted, cuz I'm at work and can't spend a couple mins searching google right now).

So in short, there's hope, but it will take some time. But when it happens, it will be a total victory.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you post AC so nobody can look at your own post history. Way to build credibility.

What credibility is that? Dicedot doesn't keep that many of your old postings. I looked for a few of mine and realized they were being erased after some months, so why the fuck bother signing in? Except to maybe say I'm a different AC. This place sucks since Commander sellout abandoned it.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[CaptainDork]

It sucks much harder with you here.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[moeinvt]

Don't you think that the ACLU and other plaintiffs are well aware of the arguments that the government has used in previous cases?
I'm not saying that they'll win, but they've obviously got something more than what they had with ACLU v. NSA or Amnesty v. Clapper.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[Prune]

On the other hand, I'm not an AC, yet I have the same assessment of CaptainDork's post history. His verbal diarrhea flows prolifically and has graced enough /. discussions that a regular reader won't need to reference his post history to get the whiff of authoritarian stench every time his name pops up once again in one's field of view.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[CaptainDork]

Ah, you're just jealous is all and stuff.

Re:thrown out in 3...2...

[CaptainDork]

I don't need tough guy bullshit as much as I need authoritative street cred and stuff.

This was somewhat expected

[gTsiros]

but to see them actually go for it? ... the poor bastards...

Still won't fly

[pla]

FTA: The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures included a slide from a classified NSA presentation that made explicit reference to Wikipedia, using our global trademark. Because these disclosures revealed that the government specifically targeted Wikipedia and its users, we believe we have more than sufficient evidence to establish standing.

The slide they reference contains a random collection of corporate logos (which bizarrely includes MySpace, CNN, and Google Earth). It doesn't say anything about actually targeting them, just a vague mention of why the NSA has an interest in capturing HTTP traffic.

I fully support Wiki in this effort, and would like to see them beat the pants off the NSA. I just don't see that as happening - This will get dismissed again for lack of standing. Even if a judge accepts that slide as proof that the NSA spied on Wiki specifically, where does any form of "damage" to Wiki come into the picture? Hell, I consider myself pretty high on the government distrust scale, and even I can't honestly say that I've stopped using Wikipedia just because the NSA might see what I look up.

Re:Still won't fly

[moeinvt]

I'm certainly cheering for Wikimedia, et al. Of course the odds are against them when you have the government deciding how much power the government has.
The ACLU lawyers are no dummies however. This time around they must have something that they believe can be used to demonstrate legal standing. They're not going to file a new case that the government will be able to shut down using the exact same strategies used to kill the previous cases. Remember also that none of the Snowden revelations had come out prior to ACLU v. NSA or Amnesty v. Clapper.

Well intentioned, but misguided

[rmdingler]

Focusing on the NSA and the DOJ, arguably the most well known of the privacy violators, ignores the evidence that the majority of the World's governments engage in this sort of behavior.

If the lawsuit were successful, and if the organizations named as defendants in the suit ceased and desisted surveillance operations, all that would occur is a de facto victory in the surveillance arms race for America's opponents.

It's fairly sad, but very true to say this genie is out of the bottle.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[moronoxyd]

Ah, yes, the good ol' they-do-it-so-we-have-to.

Totally ignoring the facts that you have to start somewhere, that it is best to start where you have at lease some chance at success (as slim as it may be in reality), and that this suit will likely not stop the NSA from spying outside of America so they will only lose the 'surveillance arms race' of spying on Americans.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Zontar The Mindless]

"Jimmy steals from the shops, Ma, so it's okay for me to do it, too."

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

"...all that would occur is a de facto victory in the surveillance arms race for America's opponents."

Likely meaningless as the NSA would just continue on in secret. And of course it would be far too much to hope that they would use the setback as an opportunity to focus their vast resources back to where they belong – on finding and actually CLOSING security flaws to protect US citizens.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

Spying on Americans isn't part of the NSA's mission. Stopping that won't stop them from doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[CaptainDork]

Yes.

The "awareness" part of this will require popcorn.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Jason Levine]

Also ignoring that America is still an influential force in the world. Unfortunately, much of our influence has been directed in a negative manner (e.g. copyright expansion). Imagine if the US government used its influence to put rational limits on spying. Would everyone immediately stop? Of course not, but it would push a lot of countries in the right direction and give some us good momentum.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[johncandale]

shut down the NSA and we won't have contract required backdoors all over the place. So you could make your stuff more secure. Either we are all secure or no one is. The NSA makes EVEVYONE less safe. Other governments can't force limits on encryption and demand keys to the castles

Go Wikimedia

[MrKaos]

Legitimate intelligence gathering is a good thing. Intelligence operations that hide corruption or incompetance is not.

Re:Go Wikimedia

[CaptainDork]

Close, but ..."Intelligence operations that are discovered reveal incompetence."

Re:Go Wikimedia

[Anonymous Coward]

It must not be legitimate intelligence gathering since they don't seem to be getting any smarter.

And the evidence for mass surveillance

[nnappe]

by other countries is WHERE? I mean, except for the five eyes, that was coordinated by US.

Good luck with that!

[MagickalMyst]

There's a song about this...It's called the "authority song" by John Cougar.

"I fight authority, authority always wins."

A question of standing.

[westlake]

The problem here is that the extract reads more like a high flying call for political action than the kind of down to earth case or controversy a judge can decide.

Turn the secrecy around

[Anonymous Coward]

If the judge asks for you to prove standing, claim that you cannot reveal that information since there's a security letter forbidding you.

Re:Turn the secrecy around

[Anonymous Coward]

Case dismissed.

Re:Turn the secrecy around

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, can't be dismissed: the evidence is there, and the court isn't allowed to see it, the government says! That's what a security letter *means*. What you do then is require courts agree that the stifling clause at least of the security letters be removed.

You now have court precedent for this.

So now you can insist that the letter be opened up on you, or prove that there is no such thing. Failing to do so would be contempt. And in this case, the NSA *said* they were involved in WM.

from the good-luck-with-that dept.

[neo-mkrey]

'nuff said

Either way, they make a point

[Anonymous Coward]

They might set a precedent defeating the NSA - which is nice. If they loose this, they show very clearly what the country has become. They make a point either way.

Re:Either way, they make a point

[sumdumass]

Nah.. it can be dismissed on a denial of standing alone. Sure wikipedia can say X but the key is whether there was harm because of it or not and whether a court will recognize that harm.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. The FCC used the interstate commerce clause to movr the internet to title 2 regulation and the courts have long supported searches under the guise of interstate commerce. Even if the NSA is struck down, it can easily, and likely under existing search standards (boarder searches and the ability to inspect cargo) continue will not be hampered. Especially since at least justice robberts is willing to ignore the text of a law and read a penalty as a tax in order to allow it to be constitutional. This signifies that tjis supreme court will go to lengths to allow the government to have its way if there is a conflict over rights dedpite the 9th and 10th amendments.

Re:Either way, they make a point

[Prune]

Standing is addressed in TFA: "The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures included a slide from a classified NSA presentation that made explicit reference to Wikipedia, using our global trademark. Because these disclosures revealed that the government specifically targeted Wikipedia and its users, we believe we have more than sufficient evidence to establish standing."

Re:Either way, they make a point

[sumdumass]

As i said, standing neefs to show harm. The court can not accept any harm was done and deny standing. Notice their claim id that they believe? They still need to get the court to believe too.

I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[tepples]

Did John "Cougar" Mellencamp write "Authority Song"? I seem to remember it being released first by Neil Diamond with different lyrics as "Cherry, Cherry".

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cherry, Cherry" doesn't sound much like The Authority Song to me.

It sounds more like The Monkees' A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You - written by who? Self-plagiarizing Neil Diamond.

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[MagickalMyst]

No, not the same song at all.

And Neil Diamond ... well, there's a deep rabbit hole.... (shudders)

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[tepples]

Start at 1:08 in the "Cherry, Cherry" video, and take down about the next 16 measures. True, they're in different keys, but if you transpose this passage from "Cherry, Cherry" up about a fifth, it starts to sound very similar.

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[Anonymous Coward]

> True, they're in different keys, but if you transpose this passage from "Cherry, Cherry" up about a fifth, it starts to sound very similar.

Not to me. "Cherry, Cherry" sounds more like "R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A." ("What I Like About You," "I'm the Man," etc. etc.). It's a standard D-major I-IV-V progression.

Neil Diamond didn't invent the I-IV-V progression. What's more, "Cherry, Cherry" is actually a I-IV-VII-IV progression in E.

"Authority Song" always reminded me more of "La Bamba" with a different rhythm (as did R.E.M.'s "Stand" and numerous others).

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[tepples]

"Cherry, Cherry" sounds more like "R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A."

The A part of "Cherry, Cherry" sounds like "R.O.C.K.", I'll agree. The B part is what sounds like "Authority". And I'm going based more on the melodic shape than the chord progression.

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but my point is there are at least a dozen songs with the same theme, rhythm, chords, and/or "melodic shape."

Pinning a single one of those as a rip-off of another doesn't make much sense to me.

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[tepples]

Yet the jury found for Marvin Gaye's estate in the "Blurred Lines" case.

Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins

[Anonymous Coward]

The key is whether a work is derivative, i.e. could "Blurred Lines" have been written without Marvin Gaye's song first.

Could "Authority Song" have been written without "Cherry, Cherry"? Most likely yes.

This reminds me of what Alien writer Dan O'Bannon said when people pointed out how derivative the script was, but couldn't nail it down to any particular antecedent. He said, "I didn't steal it from anybody. I stole it from everybody!"

If I ever feelt compelled to donate...

[Anonymous Coward]

...It's now. I'm going to make a donation to the WF and the EFF right now, and every six months until this is sorted out.

Very little things are more worth of it.

Oh in that case...

[ThatsNotPudding]

The article specifically addresses the issue of standing:

"The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures included a slide from a classified NSA presentation that made explicit reference to Wikipedia, using our global trademark. Because these disclosures revealed that the government specifically targeted Wikipedia and its users, we believe we have more than sufficient evidence to establish standing."

So instead it will be thrown out as 'fruit of the poisoned tree' (stolen documents).

Same police state, different day.

Re:Oh in that case...

[Frobnicator]

Not quite. That only applies if the government wrongfully acquired the documents, knew they were wrongfully obtained, and used them anyway. It is typically avoided by claiming they didn't realize they were wrongfully obtained and they were acting in good faith.

Wikimedia learned of the violations through legally available public documents.

The violations were more than just eavesdropping. The publicly available leaked documents claim the NSA falsified records and used the Wikipedia trademarks to help claim the validity of the pages. Even if part of the suit gets dropped, portions of it document clear civil violations.

While the government can do quite a lot to lie and convince others they are not the government, the Lanham Act is clear that the federal government is liable at the very least for their spying program disrupting the site and using their marks. Specifically in 15 USC 1114, it is against the law for "any person" to reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or imitate a registered mark when it is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. Deception is exactly what the government did. The law continues: the term "any person" includes the United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, or other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, and any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. The United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, and any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

That is quite clear, law twice declares that nobody in government is immune from that law. They stated it twice, just to be clear that it applies to everyone in government. :-)

Re:Oh in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

That only works in the other direction I believe. On top of that they were not the ones to steal those documents.

3... 2... 1...

[qeveren]

... No standing.