Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Sues DOJ For Access To Secret Court Orders On Decryption (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the national-treasure dept.

An anonymous reader writes: TechCrunch reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice to reveal documents that "show whether DOJ has ever forced a company like Google or Apple to provide technical surveillance assistance in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a federal court that issues secret surveillance warrants in national security cases and has been criticized for rubber-stamping NSA overreach." The EFF has been rejected in its attempt to gain access to the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. "Even setting aside the existence of technical assistance orders, there's no question that other, significant FISC opinions remain hidden from the public," EFF senior staff attorney Mark Rumold said in a statement regarding the lawsuit. "The government's narrow interpretation of its transparency obligations under USA FREEDOM is inconsistent with the language of the statute and Congress' intent. Congress wanted to bring an end to secret surveillance law, so it required that all significant FISC opinions be declassified and released. Our lawsuit seeks to hold DOJ accountable to the law." The full lawsuit can be read here.

62 comments

  1. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DOJ for whom?

    1. Re:yeah right by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      Big money donors and the special people. Tim S.

      DOJ for whom?

  2. reminder to self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    donate some more dollars to EFF.

    1. Re: reminder to self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't do it. The governments knows who donates to the EFF. Picking the wrong side of the fence would be... Unwise.

    2. Re:reminder to self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This week, yes. Other weeks, not so much. The EFF is not always *consistent*. Under Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow, they did a lot of good against the Secret Service's abusive Sun Devil Operation. Then under Jerry Berman, they became "just another DC lobby group" and helped promote the very screwed up TCPA and CAN-SPAM laws that enshrined abusive behavior with government approval.

      They've gotten vastly better since then, but Mitch Kapor had stepped back from the EFF hoping to get a job in Bill Clinton's administration, ideally in the department of Commerce, and it didn't pan out. You have to judge the EFF's goals on a case by case basis. This one is laudable, and interesting, and the feds are going to pretend national security and wait until the sun expands and occupies Earth's orbit as a red giant before they open up these records, so it's not a high yield civil liberties target. They've been too obviously used for political harassment and personal, non-national-security investigations to ever admit to public scrutiny.

  3. before you forget , here's the link by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://supporters.eff.org/don...

    I'd forget if I waited until later.

    1. Re:before you forget , here's the link by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Mod up, mod up!

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    2. Re:before you forget , here's the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, did it. Anyone else have at least enough balls to post that they donated AC?

    3. Re: before you forget , here's the link by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link; I just threw 'em some cash.

    4. Re:before you forget , here's the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://supporters.eff.org/don...

      I'd forget if I waited until later.

      I always pick them as my charity when I when I buy a Humble Bundle.

  4. Like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... reveal documents that "show whether DOJ has ever forced a company like Google or Apple to provide technical surveillance assistance...

    No, none of the companies we forced were like Google or Apple.

  5. Sic semper tyrannis by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I certainly hope things turn out for the best because a government unaccountable to the people ends poorly.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It used to end poorly when spears were involved. Unfortunately these days the kill ratio will be closer to 100,000:1 martyrs-to-cops.

      Hard to stand against rocket launchers, lasers and sonic cannons when all you have is rocks. The only way we can win is to die in large enough numbers that the workforce and economy will subsequently fall apart.

    2. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a really big, er, toy.

      AC

    3. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Shit happens when you constantly reelect corrupt people into office. It give full consent to all government actions. Complaints coming from those who keep voting for republicans and democrats really have no credibility. You all know the routine.

      Instead of suing, try voting for someone else. Suing the government really is like suing ourselves for being stupid in the voting booth.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sadly, so long as we have first-past-the-post voting laws, voting for the lesser evil is generally the rational choice. To overcome that you need to be able to convince a majority of people that a third-party candidate both has a real chance of winning, and will be sufficiently better than the lesser evil to risk handing the election to the greater evil instead. That combination is extremely difficult to accomplish, especially in the face of a media empire that has a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

      Now, what might be interesting, is to engage in an organized grassroots campaign at the municipal level where individual voters wield more power, to implement something like instant runoff voting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE) instead, to at least eliminate the spoiler effect and encourage people to vote for their preferred candidate instead of engaging in strategic voting. From there we could at least hope that the movement could gain momentum and eventually reach the state and even national level.

      Sadly, it seems that even city elections are generally governed by state law (does anyone know if there are states where this is not the case?), and most state legislatures probably have far too great a vested interest in maintaining the two-party system to make such changes likely, but it would at least be a more achievable goal than making such changes at the federal level.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The "lesser evil" is never rational. It is merely expedient, leaving responsibility behind. In the media polls disapproval of the major candidates runs about 60%. If that was transferred to the actual vote, the democrats and republicans can be purged. There is only one place to put the blame.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I always vote Cthulu for president... I'm tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.

      Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

    7. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That would be great, IF you could get a substantial percentage of that 60% to unite behind a single candidate. Heck, we've generally got a voter turnout below 50%, if you could just motivate a majority of the non-voters to unite behind someone you could probably win the election, and they don't even have to worry about the spoiler effect since they weren't going to vote for either of the "big two" anyway.

      Until then though the rational choice is the one that maximizes personal benefit. Suppose Bernie wins the nomination, and Hillary decides to run as a 3rd-party candidate. Either one could defeat Trump handily on their own, but with both on the ballot they split the vote, and Trump gets the presidency. Given (honest, accurate) pre-election polling that's an entirely predictable outcome before a single vote is cast, and so anyone who would have voted for Bernie if Hillary wasn't running, but decided to vote for Hillary instead, is directly, knowingly, contributing to Trump's victory. It's infuriating. It's disgusting. And it's the unavoidable truth of how US elections are conducted. So long as you perceive a substantial difference between the lesser and greater evil, the rational choice is to vote for the candidate you dislike least among the two who have the best chance of winning. Aka voting against the greater evil.

      Granted, that may not necessarily be the best choice in the long term - by voting third party you do send a message that your vote was available had either of the major parties fielded a candidate more to your liking, so it's certainly far better than abstaining entirely. To be a rational choice though you must believe that either
      1) pre-election polls are inaccurate or intentionally biased, and your preferred candidate does in fact have a viable chance of winning, despite the votes lost to the "lesser evil" by both those who prefer them AND those who choose to engage in strategic voting
      2) at least one of the major parties will take that message to heart, and that as a result future candidates will veer far enough in your preferred direction to deliver a long-term benefit that outweighs the short-term losses due to the Greater Evil taking office.
      or
      3) That your vote will contribute to the growth of a third party that can eventually supplant one of the existing two parties. Because it's mathematically and historically provable that a first-past-the-post voting system will always devolve into a two-party system.

      If you don't honestly believe any of those, then voting your conscience is rationally equivalent to abstaining entirely.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Desired change is squarely upon the voters' shoulders. There is no other place to turn. It really is that simple.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      :-) I like the "foe" thing. Did I leave a mark? Can't you accept responsibility for your vote?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      that wasn't the problem at all. it's just you were so off base and the political party isn't even relevant. it was off-topic and slightly trolly, so i looked at your comment history which revealed your comments are boring and inane. marking you as "foe" merely means your comments get stripped out by a browser extension. i don't take offense to your comments, i just don't have time to bother with all the people like you that comment just to comment. bye.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nothing "offtopic" there. I already know that we are under a single party system with minor factional divisions. But we still can vote them out for others, as an experiment at least. You don't seem interested in trying to get the word out. I suspect partisanship on your part, and very typical when it comes to passing blame to all expect those responsible (that would be you, the voter) Eh, whatever. Stay in your echo chamber as you wish and live with what you bring down upon yourselves.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Sic semper tyrannis by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Though I know you aren't listening anymore, I'm just going to point out that all you people crying about "unaccountable government" are the real trolls. Any lack of accountability is directly due to your lack of demand for any, which is reflected by your votes.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. likely a futile effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For one thing the DOJ is claiming there weren't any FISC opinions or orders pertaining to EFF's rather broad FOIA request, and secondly they came across two items that potentially could fall under the EFF's scope of their request, but can't be released because there were classified by Executive Order which is exempt from the FOIA. So either the EFF secretly has a copy or copies some FISC documents that meet the criteria of their FOIA request and are trying to go through this route in order to release them publicly without getting into trouble, or they're just fishing. So far, the FBI has gone through federal courts to compel companies to technically assist them with decryption issues. I'm not sure how the EFF knows that the FISC has significantly constructed or made an interpretation of the law with regard to FBI technical assistance and tech companies unless they may already possess such a ruling from the FISC. Anyway, its unlikely they're to get any docs that were classified by Executive Order.

    1. Re:likely a futile effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So far, the FBI has gone through federal courts to compel companies to technically assist them with decryption issues.

      Only rarely. The monitoring of email and network traffic content, phone calls and their content, and web traffic require only the investment in non-encrypted technology to organize and record the traffic. And the telecoms and some ISP's are compelled to provide such access under the TeleCommunications Privacy Act, which the EFF helped co-sponsor during the reign of Jerry Berman as their leader.

      It's *amazing* how that one keeps coming back to bite the EFF.

  7. One question by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    Standing? Can the EFF show harm caused to the it?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have standing because its their FOIA request that's been denied. The EFF is asserting that the DOJ didn't do a proper search and that they are withholding FISC documents. After exhausting the administrative appeals process, the law allows them to sue the DOJ to get the federal court to exam their request and determine if, indeed, there are FISC opinions or orders that should have been released publicly.

  8. 'Significant' Opinions by mentil · · Score: 2

    I imagine the DOJ will respond that the FISC opinions in question aren't significant enough for the USA FREEDOM act to apply, the obvious loophole I saw coming before it was passed. Luckily, the executive branch will certainly release those documents anyways because we're headed by the most transparent administration ever. Thanks, Obama!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  9. Vietnam, Iraq, Korea. One stealth vs White House by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Assume for a moment that none of the citizens serving in our military would fight on the right side. I present to you the following examples of the US government using its "rocket launchers" vs a "clearly outmatched" population:
    Vietnam
    Iraq
    Korea

    It turns out that a determined population isn't readily defeated by even the strongest military in the world.

    Consider further what happens when even a single B-2 pilot decides to put 80 JDAM-equipped guided bombs into the White House and whatever other government targets he chooses to eliminate. Any one of the 18 Ohio-class submarines could use its 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles to remove Washington.

  10. Do NOT donate to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    All donations are recorded and EFF donors are on a watchlist. You might find out to your -and your family's - chagrin just how difficult life can be for a "person of interest".

    1. Re:Do NOT donate to the EFF by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All donations are recorded and EFF donors are on a watchlist. You might find out to your -and your family's - chagrin just how difficult life can be for a "person of interest".

      Pfft!

      If you aren't already on several "government watchlists" you have no life, no friends or family, have never used electronic communications, never used any modern transportation or financial/banking/commerce systems, and hold/voice no opinions.

      News flash, Bunky. *Everybody* is a "person of interest" these days. That's the whole point!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re: Do NOT donate to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the amazing work they do is exactly why I donate to the EFF. John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence in big flowing script so that the King could see it clearly. If you're gonna do something like that, do it right.

    3. Re: Do NOT donate to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The King of England back then did not have instantaneous communications, vast databases and drones. What's your point again? This is the 21st century, not late 1700.

    4. Re:Do NOT donate to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you're not on any known government watchlist, you're probably on one for being too clean...

    5. Re:Do NOT donate to the EFF by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      The world needs less cowards like you.

    6. Re: Do NOT donate to the EFF by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Luckily for us all Hancock wasn't a total pussy, was a smuggler and was already well distrusted by the British well before he signed the declaration.

    7. Re:Do NOT donate to the EFF by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      The world needs fewer pedants like me.

    8. Re:Do NOT donate to the EFF by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      You are correct.

  11. Re:Vietnam, Iraq, Korea. One stealth vs White Hous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the strongest military in the world ...

    In Korea, the USA thought they could piss-off China and not have to face the Chinese air force, even to the point that some generals wanted to invade China. China showed that the USA was wrong on both counts.

    In Vietnam, the USA was also fighting North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia but refused to invade those countries. Making the war bigger may not have changed the outcome.

    In Iraq, the urban landscape meant bigger weapons and 'reservations' for the natives could not be used to isolate the enemy.

    The first two enemies were not "clearly outmatched" and had plenty of resources for fighting even if bigger weapons was not one of those resources. In the third case, many US resources were unavailable.

  12. Re:Vietnam, Iraq, Korea. One stealth vs White Hous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure I understand how any of what your reply contained has to do with the DOJ being forced to hand over documents that are supposed to be open to the public due to prior legislation.

    I do agree that America sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong, and we also tend to go to war with countries that "theoretically" shouldn't have a chance in comparison.

  13. You want the truth? by houghi · · Score: 2

    You can't handle the truth.

    Anyway, with a name like USA FREEDOM it is clear those words do not mean what they think it means.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re: You want the truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they do, just like a "Columbian necktie". The first word drastically drastically changes the meaning of the second.

  14. Re:TRUMP WINS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will be sick of winning.

    Pffft... looks like we have been since the end of WW2. I mean, really, where's the money in it?

  15. Re:TRUMP WINS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia did the lions share of the winning in Europe ww2 btw