Slashdot Log In
EFF Sues AT&T Over NSA Wiretapping
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Jan 31, 2006 06:04 PM
from the getting-caught-in-the-wrong-bed dept.
from the getting-caught-in-the-wrong-bed dept.
Omega1045 writes "Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency execute illegal warrant-less wiretaps against American citizens.
From the article: 'The lawsuits alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members.'"
Related Stories
[+]
AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs 157 comments
UltimaGuy writes to mention a Wired article about some AT&T documents that have gone off the farm. An ex-employee provided some information to the EFF, to assist in their wiretapping case against the company. Ma Bell is now arguing the files are confidential, and shouldn't be used in a court case. From the article: "The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms exist in other AT&T switching centers."
[+]
FBI Releases Secret Subpoena Information 282 comments
gollum123 writes to mention a CNN article, reporting on an FBI information release. The number of secret subpoenas the Bureau filed last year reached 3,501. These documents allowed access to credit card records, bank statements, telephone records, and internet access logs for thousands of legal citizens without asking for a court's permission. From the article: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the same panel that signs off on applications for business records warrants, also approved 2,072 special warrants last year for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies. The record number is more than twice as many as were issued in 2000, the last full year before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
[+]
The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence 405 comments
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
[+]
EFF Case Against AT&T To Go Forward 227 comments
Tyler Too writes "The NSA wiretap lawsuit filed by the EFF will apparently be moving forward. A federal judge has denied the government's request that the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T be dismissed. Among other things, the judge ruled that 'if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security.' The case will now move forward, pending a government appeal."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TLA truck overturns on the turnpike (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TLA truck overturns on the turnpike (Score:5, Funny)
How is this off topic? They couldn't have worked more alphabet-soup acronyms into the headline if they tried?
Well, maybe they could. Let's try rewriting the story:
19 acronyms, 5 abbreviations, etc.
Well, its certainly Acronym 2.0 compliant.
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you talking smack about US intelligence? (Score:5, Funny)
Like what, sport? Smoke signals? Wooo, the terrorists KNOW that US Signals Intelligence is trying to listen in on their phone calls/email/faxes and any other form of electronic communications they can get their 40 foot dishes on! Oh Noes!!1!ONE1!ELEVENTY1!
Do the words "No shit Sherlock" hold any meaning for you? Any terrorist that didn't already know this was already killed or captured long before 9/11 or any other major event. It's just common sense. Terrorist darwinism. If you are too f'in stupid to stego-encrypt your plans to blow up the White House in an apparent P3N15 enlargement spam, you were a dead terrorist already. The ones that aren't dead are the ones that know better. Either that, or you're saying the good men and women of our nation's intelligence agencies are incredibly stupid, endangering American lives with negligent job performance, and deserve to be fired.
Wait a minute... that's exactly what you're saying... That's it isn't asshole? You're talking shit about our CIA/DIA/FBI/KGB/SIGINT/STASI/NSA/NRO/DHS, aren't you, you mother fucking unpatriotic piece of horse shit!!! You're saying there are terrorist sending plain text email that haven't been captured! You mother fucker... Call in the jack boots and kick itsdave's ass. You're with us or against us you unpatriotic towel head son of a bitch. What's it gonna be 'dave' or should I say Akmed?!?!
... there, now you know how stupid you sound to the rest of the free world.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
"But Osama, Osama, you said they had to go to FISA before they could wiretap our conversations! Now they're doing it without a warrant!"
"What can I say, how can I get a lawyer when we won't deal with Jews?"
It's about time EFF got back into the news! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's about time EFF got back into the news! (Score:4, Funny)
New Slogan (Score:4, Funny)
What'd they say? (Score:5, Funny)
"What'd they say?"
"Said they're gonna sue AT&T."
"Why?"
"Dunno, probably because AT&T let's us wiretap illegally."
"What're they saying now?"
"Something about their line is probably even now being bugged."
"Harsh!"
TLAs... (Score:5, Funny)
OMG!
Re:LOL! (Score:5, Funny)
NSA>EFF
FU AT&T
not the typical class action suit... (Score:5, Insightful)
The text of the EFF lawsuit [eff.org] requests damages of $100 per day for each day the violation occurred or $10,000 (whichever is greater) be paid to each class member. Sure beats getting a coupon for $10 off our next purchase of a bill of rights.
Seth
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a valid assertion. "I was just following orders," has long been regarded as no defense. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
Schwab
If AT&T is innocent, they have nothing to hide (Score:5, Funny)
Want to help? Join the EFF today! (Score:5)
Re:I'm out too (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the huge gaping hole in your argument. How do you know they are calling known or suspected terorists, when your government refuses to let anybody know who they are tapping on what basis but just ask you to trust them?
Do I really have to point out to you that the US has at least once had a president who had no qualms about wiretapping his political enemies for political gain (Nixon, in case you completely lack history knowledge)? What makes you think you can trust the current and all future governments not to do the same.
Keep in mind that regardless whether you think Bush is an asswipe or a true American hero, he will not be president forever, and any expansion of presidential powers will be there to exploit for future presidents too unless something is done to stop it.
The scary part here is not that Bush wants to wiretap, but that he so obviously KNOW that these wiretaps are wide reaching, considering that he's decided it's worthwhile to avoid asking for permission from a court that hardly ever says no to any request, and where the requests can be filed after the fact.
It takes an extreme naivety to think even for a second that nothing is fishy there.
If these are truly people calling suspected terrorists, then warrants for these wiretaps would be granted with no problems.
So why again, is it necessary to bypass the oversight measures put in place by congress?
Re:Not illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
They already have the power to do these things without a warrant so long as they go back and get the warrant within 72 hours. This gives them the ability to act on a lead immediately without the hassle of waiting on a judge. They don't want to do even THAT much -- they want whatever they are doing to be SECRET and to be UNACCOUNTABLE for it. Ultimately, I believe we will find that it is going well beyond communications where one side is 'al qaeda' and the other side is in the U.S. I think if we get to see what they are REALLY doing, we'll find investigations against anti-war and anti-Bush organizations and their members.
already seen it (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the litmus test for true American Patriotism. If you aren't outraged, you aren't a patriot. At best, you are a nationalist.
Nice, Except (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Nowhere within the delegated powers does it say the president can violate
the 4th amendment. There is zippo, zero, nada authority to do so.
If we go with your rationalization, we are in a war with no clear enemy, no clear objective, no clear ending. This means we are effectively in a perpetual war. It also means that every president is effectively above the law until the war ends. As much as I detest Hilary Clinton, I hope to god she becomes president just to watch all the neo-cons squirm as she abuses the powers they have given bush.
Even if we assume that this :
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" is his justification, guess what?
Congress HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to give the president the power to suspend the 4th amendment.
The only way either Congress or Bush can do so is to amend the constitution to allow it.
Regarding your last point :
"I want the President taking the necessary step of surveiling our active stated enemies in order to have a shot at preventing the nutcases from taking another 9/11-esque shot at me and mine. I don't see how it can be any other way, given the state of the world."
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. I bet you that Americans would react violently if the chinese had replaced our government with a new one (after they supervised the elections). Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
Re:Not illegal. (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't you supposed to be preparing for your speech tonight?
Illegal and extremely scary if you know about FISA (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me tell you two reasons to fear the side-stepping of FISA courts both dealing with the already scary nature of the secret courts. The first is that of about 19,000 applications for permission to wiretap from 1979-2004 only four have ever been rejected [epic.org] by the court. Obviously, in legitimate cases of security issues, the FISA court doesn't stand much in the way.
The second reason is that according to 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1805(f)(2), the Attorney General has up to 72 hours after starting wiretapping to get approval. If they get a legitimate hot tip, then they can start tapping immediately and get approval afterwards. If not approved, then the evidence can't be used in court but as mentioned above only 4 applications have ever been rejected.
Given that FISA extremely rarely rejects requests put before it and that you don't have to get permission before you can start, there are only two reasons possible why Bush doesn't want to go to the court.
Lastly, the President was NOT authorized by Congress to do this under any legitimate interpretation. He was given authority to use force against terrorists. He was not given authority to wipe his rear end with the 4th and 6th Amendments like he claims he is. If it even were possible for Congress to authorize this, then there are effectively no limits on what powers he may assume.
Incidentally, regardless of your stance for or against abortion, the limits of executive power is the number one reason to give a damn about Judge Alito. The man is a fascist who does not accept any reasonable limits on executive power [consortiumnews.com] and police power. Just look at two of his rulings. (1 [boston.com] 2 [typepad.com]) (But hey, we can always rely on the media to cover the important stuff like his equivocation on abortion and the padding of his resume with an elitist, racist group, right?)
Re:Illegal and extremely scary if you know about F (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you call a person within the boarders of a country, not a citizen of the country, during the time of war, without any sort of uniform, receiving communication from the enemy?
A dangerous criminal. We have laws for dealing with them. These laws were created specifically to put checks and balances in place to ensure freedom and democracy stay alive. These laws ban the kind of things you see in dictatorships like indefinite imprisonment without charges, spying on citizens who oppose the government, torture of prisoners, and secret trials where the defendant is not allowed to have access to lawyers or to see and challenge all the evidence presented against them. These are all things that this administration has claimed the power to do (oh, but only against the bad guys, of course).
This is the type of person that 150 years ago would not be arrested by the police, and not tried by citizen courts.
Please justify this statement with historical examples.
If you look at things this way, it is very easy to see why the administration went to Congress and informed them on what they were doing, and nothing was done. It would also explain why the administration believes they are doing the right thing, within the law.
He only informed a very select few members of Congress, and we don't know how much he told them nor whether or not what he told them is true. After all, he's acted to prevent oversight that would allow fact checking. We do know however that he's presented tainted evidence to Congress before, and look where that got us. We also know that he's lied about wiretaps before.
--George W. Bush, during a 2004 campaign speech [whitehouse.gov]
Honestly, how can you trust this man anymore? There are no legitimate reasons to evade FISA. The only other reasons are to spy on people who shouldn't be spied on or to go on a fishing expedition through a wide sea of innocent people in the hopes of grabbing someone guilty. These are the acts of man who has no respect for rule of law.
Re:Not illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
For a history of how the US government dealt with communication during wars, read up on Ben Franklin on the NSA web site. Interesting reading.
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:5, Insightful)
You cant just ignore something and hope it goes away, they are fighting the good fight within the system .. and are losing some ground, but I dont see anyone else trying as hard.
The Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead you take a page from the *IAA Big Book o' Lawsuits. Go after the bottom of the food chain (Grokster anyone?). Find cases where smaller independant or regional telecoms/isps have given up data, and go after them, building precedent to use for later cases.
IANAL, but (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, how many here actually went out and read the Supreme Court's opinion in the Grokster case? I did. And I was struck by how this was a real victory for the technology industry for two reasons:
1) The Supreme Court refused to revisit the Betamax precident.
2) The Supreme Court only allowed one to look for liability based on active inducement, so while this might not protect Grokster, Kazaa, etc who build their business models around the premise that people are going to violate copyrights, it does protect BitTorrent and others who build their business models arround legal uses of the technology. IMO, Betamax really wasn't intended to protect those who, in bad faith, actively encourage copyright infringement.
So while Grokster lost the appeal to the Supreme Court, the EFF did us all a service in helping to ensure that the previous precidents protecting our ability to invent new technologies and communiciations media continued to stand.
So you can't just look at raw numbers as to who the final judgements favored. You really have to read the opinions. The EFF is doing us all a great service in their representation. It is unfair to characterize them as harmful.
Re:IANAL, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Win or lose, the fact that someone says, "Hey, you can't do that" and uses the system to complain is precisely one of the good things about the U.S. system. It keeps people from resorting to illegal actions during the dispute, and, hopefully, comes out with a just resolution, making the country stronger, or keeping it from being abused.
When people remain silent about their dislike of government's actions, people stop trusting the government, and a resentment builds which is dangerous in the long term.
There is a very good reason why people say that a requirement for a longer term successful democracy is a "loyal opposition."
Re:IANAL, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Among these are the current EFF v. AT&T and Padilla v. Hanft.
In general even if I don't agree with the way cerain judges rule, I have to admit that most of them really try hard. I would note the way in which Judge Luttig and his pannel first ruled in favor of the Bush Administration in Padilla in an opinion that appeared to unconditionally defer things to the executive and then later refused to allow the Administration to reclassify Padilla as something other than an enemy combattant so that the Supreme Court could review the case. Though I think they got it wrong the first time, I think they did the right thing in trying to prevent the Administration from circumventing the Supreme Court's oversight.
IANAL, of course.
Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what you'd recommend in the face of arrogance and tyranny?
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Funny)
click...I, for one, welcome our warrantless, wire-tapping overlords...hello, hello, is this thing on, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I SAID I can be useful in rounding up fellow slashdotters to slave in your undeground Echelon data store....click
I think it's more of the (Score:5, Interesting)
It's kind of sad. I once had a Biz Law class and when the prof (JD) asked the class if the folks who are arrested for "terrorism" deserve due process, the only people who raised their hands were the Naturalized citizens and me - born 'N raised AMerican - Fuck Yeah! The prof asked the few who raised their hands what their background was - that's how we knew they were naturalized. Sad.
"if you're doing nothing wrong, then you have noth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"if you're doing nothing wrong, then you have n (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is full of examples that counter your point. Don't blame the US because you can't succeed.
"What can we, as individuals, really do? "
Change the country. What? you think there is some sort of hive mind doing all this? no, it's just individuals.
Participate or don't be counted, your choice.
What can we, as individuals, really do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think governmental abuses of power... (Score:5, Insightful)
When has that ever happened?
Laws against warrantless spying on US citizens exist for a reason. History demonstrates that when the government has this power, they don't just use it on terrorists. First they use it on terrorists, but then they use it on drug dealers. Next come child pornographers. After that, conventional pornographers. Then, "radical" artists and dissidents.
Before long, they're spying on the modern-day heirs to the radical legacy of Martin Luther King and John Lennon.
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:5, Insightful)
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is good men do nothing.
I'd rather they kept plugging away, regardless of losses. If there's one less soldier on your side, it's all the more likely the other side will prevail.
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad enough I'm feeding the troll here, but please, don't repeat the trolls, that gets them really excited.
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:4, Insightful)
But even beyond that, the matter is highly controversial and hotly debated. There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime. There's the question of whether or not the definition of "military operations" includes intelligence-gathering operations conducted by the Executive. There's the question of the wisdom of arbitrarily curbing the Executive's constituional authority, which would make it more difficult for the Executive to fulfill its constitutional responsiblities.
And these are just a few of the more interesting (to me) questions of principle. There's also the practical questions: how much of what's being said about this issue is FUD from partisans, extremists, the media-industrial complex, etc.
Then there's the technical questions: You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up? Hope that number doesn't reach an active cell planning to smuggle an Iranian suitcase nuke across the Mexican border? Or do you say, I'm Executive, the Constitution gives me the responsibility to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to protect the country in time of war, and Congress has told me this is a time of war, so tap that fucker and let's see what's up?
Now, I admit that the responsible answer to that question depends a lot on the answers to the preceding questions. My point is that there is no consensus on the preceding questions, and therefore it's not at all obvious that AT&T did anything illegal.
There's nothing wrong with suing a company allegedly did something "obviously illegal". There is a problem with suing a company that did something not obviously illegal, and losing the suit. The problem is that this sets a precedent whereby the not obviously illegal act becomes obviously legal. This would be the oppsite of a Good Thing.
Personally, having forgotten to get fitted for a tinfoil beanie when I signed up for my
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:5, Interesting)
The existing methods were put in place to create a paper trail of what was being done, and it is clear that paper trail was an unwanted nuisance. *That* is what ticks me off, not that they follow up on leads. Nothing in the law would have prevented those wiretaps and there would be little heat if the president would simply follow established, auditable procedures.
The suit likewise is going after the idea that AT&T opened the networks up far beyond the requirements (and potentially legal bounds) of a normal, legal wiretap. I have no idea if they did or didn't do that.
Re:For the love of all that's good... (Score:5, Insightful)
"But even beyond that, the matter is highly controversial and hotly debated. There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime."
The matter is controversial, and there's no denying it's being hotly debated. The issues of law, however, are not so tenuous as you seem to think. Every argument that the White House has offered has been quite thoroughly refuted. About the simplest and clearest summary of these arguments can be found in Al Gore's speech on MLK day. And before anyone screams 'bias!': read the speech and weigh his statements on their merits. I'm not asking you to buy his conclusions, I'm asking you to consider his arguments and draw your own conclusions.
"You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line."
That almost certainly is probable cause, and because it's an espionage- and national security-related issue, the FISA court could readily be expected to issue a warrant for this.
In terms of spying on Americans, however, there must be a warrant. Article 4 of the constitution asserts this.
With regards to whatever 'War powers' the president might or might not have, he was explicitly denied the exercise of those powers in the US by Congress. When the White House asked the House to explicitly place US territory within the scope of the bill giving the president the right to use all means necessary, they refused. This is a matter of public record. It is therefore proven that Congress authorised no such program, and the warrant-less surveillance of individuals on US soil is illegal and unconstitutional.
Again, you're right to say that the