Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy The Courts United States

DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance 100

Posted by timothy
from the gotta-know-when-t'-holder dept.
coolnumbr12 writes with this IBTimes excerpt: "The Justice Department may soon be forced to reveal a classified document that details unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. The Justice Department has fought to keep the document secret for about a year, but a recent court order demands that they respond to a formal request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation by next week, June 7, 2013."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance

Comments Filter:
  • All hail (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vikingpower (768921) <exercitussolus@g ... m minus caffeine> on Thursday May 30, 2013 @05:05PM (#43865781) Homepage Journal

    the EFF !

    exit vikingpower

    • by Synerg1y (2169962)

      especially after reading: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware?currentPage=all [wired.com]

      Seems like they'll stop at nothing to catch their man, even if it means turning us into a police state.

      • by 0111 1110 (518466)

        Turning us into a police state is the point. Giving themselves the power to do whatever they want without even the slightest hint of oversight. The rest is just a happy side effect for them

  • Slashdot'ed already
  • Here's a cached version [wikimedia.org]

  • Thank you EFF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by intermodal (534361) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @05:17PM (#43865955) Homepage Journal

    The justification for "classifying" information is pretty much lost on people working in government these days. Keep up the good work, EFF! This classification of government crimes against the constitution nonsense has to stop.

  • Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @05:19PM (#43865981) Homepage Journal

    This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.

    Sometimes I'm amazed at how much blatantly fucked, unconstitutional shit these assclowns manage to get away with... then I remember: bread and circuses.

    Fuck.

    • This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.

      That makes perfect sense. Who would know better then himself about the crimes he did not commit?

  • Here is the court order:

    https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/052413-eff.pdf [fas.org]

    One possible "response" they could provide is "piss off".

    You'll also note the Rule 7(i) Security Clearance information proviso for the EFF counsel; so even if they get to see the information, it doesn't meant that you get to see the information, or that they can subsequently re-disclose.

    • by berashith (222128)

      this is the one that i am expecting.

    • If the Feds can leak so can the EFF. Depending on the severity of what the governments been up to (and I'm fairly sure it's far beyond anything we've even thought of) and the amount of it that's actually revealed in this document, I personally would sacrifice my citizenship to let the rest of the world know about it... and I think the EFF is a lot more dedicated than I.

  • by some old guy (674482) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @05:25PM (#43866071)

    in 3...2...1...here it comes...

    "President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."

    Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.

    • in 3...2...1...here it comes...

      "President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."

      Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.

      My favorite is "Previously Classified Anti-Constitutional Finding Court Document Stout" -- It tastes like freedom, as in beer.
      I save the labels. They'll be worth something to historians someday.

  • If only... (Score:5, Funny)

    by istartedi (132515) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @05:31PM (#43866155) Journal

    If only we had another department. A department that could bring justice to these rogue agencies. We could even have a separate one for each agency. For DoJ, We'd call it "The department of justice justice department". Of course it would only be a matter of time before it became corrupt. That's why it would be overseen by a department of justice justice department justice department. And after that? The Department of Turtles, which is all the way downtown.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @05:45PM (#43866335)

    . . . "audit", with "extreme prejudice" . . .

  • That document will just be redacted to hell, even if they release it.
  • What's to stop them from lying like Holder apparently did. Just editing out tons of stuff. It's not like they're worried about going to jail.

    I am not being cynical.

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/28/eric-holder-under-investigation-by-house-judiciary-committee-for-possibly-lying-under-oath/ [firedoglake.com]

    We have a serious problem with the integrity of the justice system. It's mainly because of worries about national security. Those worries go directly to a part of the minds of the individuals involved, the decision ma

    • 9-11 made us lose perspective of a lot of things we need to keep perspective on in order to achieve real security and also to maintain our way of life, e.g. democracy.

      Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but the US is (was?) a Constitutional Republic.

      • You're confusing a literal democracy with Democracy. A democratic republic It's a democratic form of government. It's not majority rule or direct democracy, At any rate the distinction being made is the difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms.

        A representative Republic is not a form of lawless despotism.

  • I would expect that the EFF will get nothing, or if something, a highly redacted version.

    The court will only have any effect as long as the government keeps coming to the court. The court is unlikely to provide a strong disincentive for the government coming to the court by providing the full decision.

    After all, its job is not to rat out the government, it is to tell the government what not to do.

  • by turp182 (1020263) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @06:58PM (#43867115) Journal

    This could impact national security. It could inform those who would attempt to do us harm about which communications are being monitored and potentially how.

    But, this is America. I want privacy and freedom over security.

    A man name Franklin once said:
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

    I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly (defining privacy and boundaries).

    But the 4th Amendment to the Constitution does a pretty good job and is pretty clear when it comes to the government (Facebook is another story):
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    A judge has opined that there have been breaches of the Constitution. We the People, deserve to see the document in question.

    • by MSG (12810)

      I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly

      Rights exist, absent government. The U.S. Constitution doesn't create rights, it protects several of them from government infringement.

      • by turp182 (1020263)

        I just wish said government would read the Constitution once in a while and reflect on it before writing legislation (they should also read the legislation before voting...). Very few Federal legislators fulfill their oath regarding upholding and protecting the Constitution. Most legislators, with good intentions, feel that "protection" (the "common defense" and "general Welfare" bits of the preamble) can override other Constitutional protections. This should not be. If there is a conflict it is not Con

      • by turp182 (1020263)

        Sorry, but I’m going to spam you a bit more about the two party system. Your post got me thinking and I can’t turn it off. And I really don’t feel like vacuuming

        The two parties have a lock on both election funding and ballot eligibility. Both of these are solvable, funding should be pooled and split among registered candidates (and corporations should not be able to contribute a penny, they are not citizens). Private Citizens can do as they wish, as much as I may dislike the idea and t

  • Because there are no consequences for ignoring such an order, and our government officials are never held accountable for criminal acts while in office, they will simply just ignore this order like they have ignored the last several.

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.

Working...