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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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...

[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...

[TapeCutter]

Wish I had some mod points..

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.

Go Wikimedia

[MrKaos]

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

from the good-luck-with-that dept.

[neo-mkrey]

'nuff said

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. :-)