Slashdot Mirror
Judge Tosses Wikimedia's Anti-NSA Lawsuit Because Wikipedia Isn't Big Enough (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Wikimedia Foundation, Amnesty International, and others against the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for their surveillance of internet communications. The judge used some odd reasoning in his ruling to absolve the NSA of any constitutional violations. He said that since the plaintiffs couldn't prove that all upstream internet communications were monitored, they didn't have standing to challenge whatever communications were monitored. This is curious, given that tech companies are known to be under gag orders preventing them from discussing certain types of government data collection. The judge also made a strange argument about Wikipedia's size: "For one thing, plaintiffs insist that Wikipedia's over one trillion annual Internet communications is significant in volume. But plaintiffs provide no context for assessing the significance of this figure. One trillion is plainly a large number, but size is always relative. For example, one trillion dollars are of enormous value, whereas one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."
Why didnt slashdot post the judges name?
They should help publicize the name of this traitor.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
My guess is for whatever reason, the judge did not want to rule against the NSA. So just used whatever barely coherent reason seemed remotely plausible.
As a federal judge, you're not going to ever get in trouble for protecting the NSA regardless of the gaping holes in your ruling.
...whereas the amount it takes to buy a judge is much smaller.
Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.
Nah, his verdict was probably given to him by the NSA shortly after realizing exactly how much internet monitoring they do.
US District Judge Richard D Bennet
It is the second link of the article.
He is both a sellout and a traitor with this ruling.
I really hope that later we hear some really dirty shit about him that costs them man everything released from the same channels he just sold us all out to defend.
Also hope the absurdity of his judgment can be overturned.
What do you mean? The FBI and DHS should have copies of most of them. And Congress is ever so diligent in making sure they are following the law, because it's their job and they take it very seriously.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
A NSL is a type of subpoena, a request for basic account info and activity logs. A NSL can't ask you to provide the content of someone's data, kill someone, or smear Crisco all over your body and dance around praising Lord Xenu. (Though if it did, you'd probably be grateful for the non-disclosure clause.)
reference
example
The original purpose of non-disclosure was to avoid tipping off suspects that their communications could be monitored, but now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag and any target who worries about NSLs has surely switched to more secure communications, the secrecy around NSLs does a lot more harm than good. Of course, any change to or publicity about NSLs would rekindle debate on the legality of the program (or lack thereof), and they wouldn't want that to happen... Thankfully, people like Nicholas Merrill are forcing the issue, and hopefully there will be change...eventually.
Hint: hyperbole doesn't help, it just distracts people from the real issue. NSLs are bad because they force people to reveal personal information without due process of law. That is all.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
So this is what passes for the third box in defense of liberty these days?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Not even the point. But getting an order to KILL SOMEONE, while not being in any shape or condition, not having any training or other qualification to execute such an order, can only mean one of two things: Either I am supposed to get killed in the process or they need a patsy.
My chances for survival are actually higher when I publish the letter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nah, his verdict was probably given to him by the NSA shortly after realizing exactly how much internet monitoring they do.
This, or perhaps the judge in question was just too much of a coward to rule against a government organization that could destroy his entire life.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I don't think the NSA can just hand a judge a NSL. I suspect they went with the monkey wrench approach or the black mail approach.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You say that, but would you really? I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun but I've yet to face that so I can only hope I'd not chicken out and piss myself if it happens. In fact, I was in a single firefight while enlisted and I was scared shitless (suppressive fire only). I was all gung-ho about it before hand. When the situation happened, I'd have run the fuck away had it not been for the fact that the job needed doing and my brethren's lives were at stake. (If you think the enlisted fight for you, you are mistaken. But, I digress.)
So, would you? I know you think you would. I know you can claim you would. I know I say the same. But, would I? I'd like to think I would. Hell, I've got a few bucks - I can fight the case. But, would I? I dunno, really. I'd like to think so, but maybe not. I've also got a lot to lose and, to be honest, I don't really like you that much. (Not you personally, but you get the idea.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
> "A NSL can't ask you to provide the content of someone's data"
That's false, they've done two expansive things:
In some cases. they've asked for a box on the network. In essence they've replaced "give us transactional records" for "trust us to only look at what we're legally allowed to look at for the subject we're legally allowed to search". I recall these boxes were run by the NSA who was keeping all the data, filtering it for the FBI, then handing the legal bit back to the FBI.
And with Lavabit they demanded the crypto keys which would have also permitted content analysis on a "trust us" basis:
http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed?ref=cm
The law sets limits, and they conspire to hide the data collecting mechanism in the NSA (out of reach of the courts due to national security), while keeping the legally limited portion within the FBI.