Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over FISA Surveillance Documents 184

Posted by timothy
from the let-me-take-a-look-at-those dept.
itwbennett (1594911) writes "In a victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is suing to make the DOJ release information about surveillance on U.S. citizens, a California judge on Friday ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review. The judge said the agency failed to justify keeping the documents secret and she will decide whether the documents, including one opinion and four orders by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), were improperly withheld from the public."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over FISA Surveillance Documents

Comments Filter:
  • Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @11:20PM (#47243473) Homepage Journal

    The only upvote that really matters is the one at the ballot box. Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted--it would still be a marvelous statement if droves of citizens started voting third party.

    Also, pardon my somewhat US-centric answer.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15, 2014 @11:45PM (#47243541)

    We may have won the battle, but the war is still yet to be won.

  • Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 16, 2014 @12:33AM (#47243651)

    There is a limit to this. For reference, see Iran 1979.

    The Iran in 1979 was a police state if there ever was one. Ubiquitous secret police, extreme suppression of dissenters, the fourth largest military on the planet (all thanks to us, btw).

    And then the students hit the roads by the millions. Interviews with them later revealed that they well expected to die that day. And they were not the religious jihadist kind, that came later, they were simply fed up with the regime to the point where their stance towards the Shah was "you or me. At the end of this day, one of us is gone. Either is fine by me, but that's how it will be".

    The military pretty much noticed that. What do you want to do? What are you going to do after the 30 bullets in your rifle are shot? Sure, your kill/death ratio will be 30:1.

    The problem is: the 1 is you. And no respawn.

  • Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AHuxley (892839) on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:01AM (#47243749) Homepage Journal
    As people are slowly understanding its a vast pool of people working on "classified" stuff. Much of it is now "classified" to just stop the press, courts, law reformers, other politically active groups from finding embracing details. From over priced failed projects, crimes and the use of contractors, hidden sites, staff- doctors, lawyers who worked at remote sites. The rapid advancement and political protection of people who faced no real background investigations to the use of dual citizens... to a vast illegal telco surveillance network and the tame brands that helped..
    "A hidden world, growing beyond control (July 19, 2010) "
    http://projects.washingtonpost... [washingtonpost.com]
  • Re:OCA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sique (173459) on Monday June 16, 2014 @03:33AM (#47244135) Homepage
    The most successful ideology so far is that you shouldn't take money from the rich, because if everyone works hard, he will be rich once, and then his own money is taken, right? This mantra has allowed the wealthy 1% to have an electorate that mostly votes for the one-percent-interest, because everyone hopes to be in the 1% sometimes, and thus doesn't want to vote against his prospective future interests. Somehow lost in this is the fact that you will only belong to the 1%, if you get more than 99% of all others, which by definition is not possible for 99% of the population.
  • Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Monday June 16, 2014 @09:52AM (#47245377) Homepage

    Third-party voting fails only if you consider victory the only consideration. But it need not be so cut and dried.

    Voting for a third-party is more than getting somebody else into office; it sends a message to the incumbent two parties. More than anything else, it says to them that their constituents are dissatisfied with their policies and are looking for alternatives. It is a warning that their position is directly in threat and that it is necessary for them to become more reactive to the the desires of the voters.

    In any election, it is unlikely that a third-party candidate will win - but not impossible. Democrats and Republicans are well aware of this. If enough people start voting for third-parties, they will change their policies to better reflect the attitudes and wants of their constituents. A rise of a third-party terrifies them and they will change to prevent it.

    Your third-party candidate may not win, but if his policies are taken up by the primary parties anyway, it is still an effective win for the electorate.

    So if your conscience dictates it, vote third-party. It is one of the major ways we as voters can indicate our dissatisfaction with the current regime - and one of the few ways to which they actually listen - and is most definitely /not/ a wasted vote.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...