ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance

aychamo writes "The American Civil Liberties Union today joined an expanding group of organizations filing lawsuits against a new rule that increases the FBI's power to conduct surveillance on the Internet. The rule being challenged is one the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, granting an FBI request to expand wiretapping authority to online communications.he ACLU charged in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the ruling goes beyond the authority of CALEA, which specifically exempted information services. "The ACLU seeks review of the CALEA order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law," the organization charged in its petition."

Colleges' costs for CALEA compliance

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

Separately, The American Council on Education filed a court challenge arguing that compliance with the rules would require colleges and universities to spend $7 billion in upgrading switches and routers.

Here's [educause.edu] a good reference on just what will be required for universities to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),and the resultant costs involved.

Re:Huh?

[skelly33]

Bingo. I've personally only seen a handful of cases brought forward by ACLU where my reaction was, "well that's a waste of time, energy & resources". They have had Important Victories [lectlaw.com] longer than most /.'ers parents have been alive.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[CottonEyedJoe]

The ACLU isnt defending Neonazis who march through black neighborhoods. They are defending my (and yours) right to say things the majority dosent agree with. The armed services defends our freedom against foreign threats and the ACLU defends our freedom against domestic ones.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[linuxrunner]

You're kidding right? I hope so, but just in case:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Let me break it down:
  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Basically says, that any country (state, etc) to remain FREE must have a well maintained army (militia).. Ok... Now with that out of the way

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Means that, just because we have a military, doesn't mean we're safe, so thereofre the right of "the people", that's us, the average person, will not be infringed. Why? Because the Brittish just tried to take our guns away so we couldn't win the war. We wouldn't give them up, and fought back.

Without guns, we could not stand up against our government.

The 2nd Amendment is actually quite simple. If you just read it. This is why they use "the people" in the Second Amendment, to mean everyday people.. you and me... just like they used in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment too!

Or maybe the right to free speech was only really meant for government officials?

Ahh legal jargon

[isa-kuruption]

While CALEA does indeed mention that the act forbids tapping of 'information services', it defines 'information services' as:

        (A) means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications; and

        (B) includes--

                (i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve stored information from, or file information for storage in, information storage facilities;
                (ii) electronic publishing; and
                (iii) electronic messaging services; but

        (C) does not include any capability for a telecommunications carrier's internal management, control, or operation of its telecommunications network.

Therefore, 'information services' as defined by the law, must be considered services which generate, acquire, store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize or make use of information. This would include such things as Google Mail and web site providers. HOWEVER, an Internet Service Provider does not generate, acquire, store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize or make use of information... it transmits, or transfers.

Therefore, under the law, it is OK to wiretap an ISP, if the information being wire tapped was not destined to be to or from the ISP (but merely a pass-through). Section (c) covers this by saying it does not include command control functionality of the ISP.

At least, that's my interpretation of the law. Obviously this conflicts with the great ACLU, so I'm sure this will be modded down.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Doc Ruby]

The ratifiers of the Bill of Rights agreed that a militia, not just an "army", is necessary to "the security of a free State". A militia, even in that time, was not a standing army, like the British one that had been quartered in private homes by royal command - an abuse that was addressed specifically elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. They said the US (a free state, unlike the colonies or the parent Britain) needed a militia - fighters both quartered and equipped largely privately, especially in peacetime, as well as posessing private experience in their own weapons. That would provide expertise and materiel without direct government expense - major premise of the limited taxation ratifiers, in contrast to the unlimited taxation of the defeated king. As well as deprive the limited government they specified of a centralized power prone to abuse, as they had so recently lived through under British rule, which justified the war to so many patriots.

But we've obviously chosen a different model for our military. We have a huge, expensive standing army - greater than any other at that time, before, or even now. Various government abuses of the people, usually ultimately enforced by nonmilitia, fulltime government armed forces, might have been avoided by having a militia. And perhaps we might not have defended our nation from various enemies. Those speculations are interesting, but besides the point. We do not have a militia, and unorganized people not enlisted in "state security" are neither a militia nor necessary to the defense of a free state. If you're talking about National Guard needing the right to own their own guns, that might be the case. But buying machineguns at flea markets has no protection from the Constitution, and is in fact damaging the security of our mostly free state.

I support the privilege of Americans who can handle the responsibility to own and use guns: eg. trained hunters and sportsmen, not convicted armed robbers or angry teenagers, much as "freedom of travel" is ensured even with restrictions on those who can't be trusted to drive a powerful vehicle like a car. I support revision of the 2nd Amendment, at very least to make its archaic grammar and vocabulary intelligible to modern Americans who live with it. But unless it's revised to protect a right for any American to own and use a gun without restriction, these contrived versions by 2nd Amendment fetishists are baseless. And dangerous to our security.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[pwackerly]

the type of gun, while relevant, is only one factor. Or so says the 10th Cir in Parker

"Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir.2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment ... was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is 'well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria."
br?

Read Federalist 29...

[maillemaker]

>We do not have a militia, and unorganized people not enlisted in
>"state security" are neither a militia nor necessary to the defense
>of a free state.

>But unless it's revised to protect a right for any American to own and use a gun without restriction, these contrived versions by 2nd Amendment fetishists are baseless. And dangerous to our security.

You are correct - today, there is no militia. But there is /supposed/ to be a militia.

What the founding fathers intended, based on other writings of theirs (like the Federalist Papers), was clearly to prevent a strong centralized government from having a strong military which would enable it to act as a tyranny. The way they intended to prevent this was to have no standing Federal army, or, at the most, a small one, countered by militias raised by the states, commanded by officers from those states, and made up of citizens from those states.

The overriding intent is clearly to keep military power in the hands of the citizens of the states, and out of the hands of a centralized federal government. The overriding intent is clearly to retain enough military power outside of the federal government to prevent said federal government from taking military action against the citizens of the states.

This kind of military setup died in the late 19th century. Many like to argue that the National Guard is now the militia of the founding father's vision. It is not. Today's National Guard in no way serves to counterbalance Federal military power. If anything, it serves as an adjunct to it and reinforces it.

Just because state militias have been commandeered by the Federal government does not mean that the founding fathers' intents are not still valid! The militias are gone, but the people are not! Given today's situation, the only way left to preserve the intent of the founding fathers is to keep arms in the hands of the /people/.

There are militias no longer, therefore the /people/ must serve as the counterbalance to federal tyranny.

Steve

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the size of the gun, it's the number. There's 150 million gun owning citizens in this country. If it ever came to direct conflict, the people of this country would destroy the military and government leadership overnight. Just the possibility prevents some idiot from proclaiming himself dictator of the US. Think it can't happen? It happened 40 years ago in one of the most civilized democratic nations on earth. Prior to taking over, Hitler first registered, then confiscated all civilian firearms.