Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikimedia Foundation Files Suit Against NSA and DOJ

Posted by timothy on from the marked-for-redaction dept.

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).

65 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. So this is what they use donations for by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Wootery · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:So this is what they use donations for by facetube · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So this is what they use donations for by m.alessandrini · · Score: 2
      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.

    4. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    5. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Phreakiture · · Score: 2

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

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    7. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:So this is what they use donations for by jythie · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:So this is what they use donations for by zarthrag · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    11. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    12. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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...

    13. Re:So this is what they use donations for by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1
      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.

    14. Re:So this is what they use donations for by all204 · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:So this is what they use donations for by facetube · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Wootery · · Score: 1

      '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?).

    17. Re:So this is what they use donations for by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:So this is what they use donations for by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    19. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:So this is what they use donations for by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:So this is what they use donations for by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:So this is what they use donations for by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  2. Waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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>

    1. Re:Waste of time and money by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    3. Re:Waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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."

  3. thrown out in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck you.

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

      Get a job more suited to your mental ineptitude.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      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. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Wish I had some mod points..

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by asylumx · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It sucks much harder with you here.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by Prune · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

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

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    11. Re:thrown out in 3...2... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

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

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  4. This was somewhat expected by gTsiros · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  5. Still won't fly by pla · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Still won't fly by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      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.

  6. Well intentioned, but misguided by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Well intentioned, but misguided by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Well intentioned, but misguided by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Well intentioned, but misguided by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      The "awareness" part of this will require popcorn.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:Well intentioned, but misguided by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Well intentioned, but misguided by johncandale · · Score: 1

      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

  7. Go Wikimedia by MrKaos · · Score: 2

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

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Go Wikimedia by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

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

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. And the evidence for mass surveillance by nnappe · · Score: 1

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

  9. Good luck with that! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

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

    "I fight authority, authority always wins."

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  10. A question of standing. by westlake · · Score: 1

    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.

  11. from the good-luck-with-that dept. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 2

    'nuff said

  12. I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins by tepples · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      No, not the same song at all.

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

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins by tepples · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins by tepples · · Score: 1

      "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.

    4. Re:I fight Neil Diamond, Neil Diamond always wins by tepples · · Score: 1

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

  13. Re:Either way, they make a point by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    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.

  14. Oh in that case... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Oh in that case... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      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. :-)

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  15. 3... 2... 1... by qeveren · · Score: 1

    ... No standing.

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  16. Re:Either way, they make a point by Prune · · Score: 1

    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."

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  17. Re:Either way, they make a point by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    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.