U.S. Government Moves To Dismiss EFF Case 219
iny0urbrain writes "The New York Times reports that the US government has asked a federal judge to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's civil liberties lawsuit against the AT&T Corporation because 'of a possibility that military and state secrets would otherwise be disclosed.' The statement concludes by saying: 'Finally, because the United States intends to assert the state secrets privilege and file a dispositive motion to dismiss this action, the United States requests that discovery proceedings be deferred until the government's submission has been considered and heard.' You can view the full text of the government's statement of interest (PDF) on the EFF's website." Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet this morning, and double posted this one. Sadly, the first one is a mere two stories down. It's also still pouring into the submissions bin, so I'm not the only one not yet awake.
dupe! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dupe! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:dupe! (Score:2)
Hipocrits (Score:2, Insightful)
Troll. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you're trolling, or you have great difficulty distinguishing between reality and entertainment. Just because something is entertaining does not mean that it is something that is agreed with. These are two completely separate things.
How would you react to the fact that some people watch V for Vendetta, 24, 1984, and True Lies? Would your head explode?
Re:Troll. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be..
Re:Hipocrits (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hipocrits (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is these shows are ingraining "Don't restrict us, after all we only go after the guilty ones" into the mind of the viewi
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Most often in drama it's clearly indicated to the audience that the "criminals" are guilty.
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Check out The Shield [imdb.com] - it's not as good as it could, but it deals with the issue of corruption in the police in a very interesting way.
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Take a gander at Law & Order.
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
It is ?
Damn I feel so guilty now...
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
I would have moderated Insightful.
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Yea, how the 'ell dare we watch movies & not want NSA to spy on us? Nonsense!
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Nope. You're mixing us up with the general public here. I just watch Enemy of the State.
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Re:Hipocrits (Score:2)
Power will always be subject to abuse by those in government, and it's not just the evil and currupt who do it.
Of course in movies our hero generally doesn't make little white mistakes like illegally wiretapping or torturing some innocent suspect. He
Re:Hipocrits (Score:4, Interesting)
"The targets represent a clear and present danger to the security of the United States."
"The President said that?"
"His words."
"Fine. That makes it all legal. Not any less dangerous, but legal."
Re:Hipocrit[e]s (Score:2, Funny)
I know... we should enter into a reciprocal remote spying agreement with another country we're close with. For example, we could spy on Brits for Tony Blair, and they could spy on Americans for us. Then, we just share the intelligence! Now America would not be spying on Americans any longer. That should work, right? After all, we already participate in extraordinary rendition!
--JoeWoah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woah. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Woah. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your way of reasoning is a well known way to avoid hearing about your own mistakes.
Re:Woah. (Score:2)
You may want to apply for a job in the Florida AG's office, though -- last week they argued in front of the US Supreme Court that a death row inmate was required to suggest his own method of execution in order to challenge whether or not lethal injection as implemented in Florida was "cruel and unusual".
Needless to say, the Justices al
Was there really any doubt... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hiding from the legislative branch. (Score:2)
Comrads PLEASE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
--Brought to you by the Republican Proletariat.
Re:It beats the Liberals attitude. (Score:2)
More at 11...
whaa (Score:5, Interesting)
where is our deepthroat today, is no one left in government uncorrupted?
Re:whaa (Score:5, Informative)
Re:whaa (Score:5, Insightful)
the only reason this is a "civil" case, is cause the government is too corrupt to regulate it'self properly at this point.. it's left to the citizens to fight back, and unfortunetly, the only way is through "civil" law..
Re:whaa (Score:2)
However, even if one party were the government, it would still be a civil case. Criminal prosecutions can only be brought by the government. Even if the government violates your rights, your only recourse in court is through a civil case.
Whether you like it or not, there are different rules that apply between civil and criminal cases. The government doesn't need to have a criminal case dismissed on the basis of national security, b
Re:whaa (Score:2)
he lives about 12 miles from me, but he's pretty old now, and I think he's out of the loop...
Today's equivalent is why we know about the NSA wiretapping at all. They're probably dead, or will be soon, or at least at Guantanamo. From what I remember about the Nixon thing, Liddy wanted to have Deepthroat killed...
Re:whaa (Score:2)
kinda creepy
Re:whaa (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:whaa (Score:2)
Re:whaa (Score:2)
Actually, that bright idea came from the first Bush administration. Clinton, a moderate, simply propagated it. Maybe it's time to elect a true liberal - we haven't had one of those in the white house for a long time.
On the other hand, can you imagine what the conservatives would do if someone were to suggest that we end the War on Drugs? (Think of a cross between the Civil War and the C
Re:whaa (Score:2)
Re:whaa (Score:2)
War against our freedom? I guess you've already forgotten all the crazy shenanigans of the Clinton era. It's not surprising, given that the media tries to portray the man in the most glowing light possible. Polls taken indicate over 80% of journalists report themselves as "Democrat." Not surprising.
Re:whaa (Score:2)
Perhaps your
Reminder from history (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's oddly coincidental that, even after everything that's happened, Bush's approval rating still is around...
...30%.
Re:Reminder from history (Score:2)
Actually, they didn't... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Reminder from history (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Reminder from history (Score:2)
Re:Reminder from history (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Reminder from history (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, this is true. However, 'Aquired' as in 'had majority backing' and not 'had the majority of seats themselves'. In other words, a majorty of the Reichstag was content not to 'raise a vote-of-no-confidence'.
In previous news.... (Score:4, Informative)
Dupe-ing stories good for once (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if only the NY Times would dupe stories like this.
Re:Dupe-ing stories good for once (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dupe-ing stories good for once (Score:2)
guilty? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:guilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spying on people simply works better.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now everyone bend over and shoot a moon....
Re:Spying on people simply works better.... (Score:2)
Andrew Tannenbaum?! (Score:2)
Question: (Score:5, Interesting)
Can an illegal act be a state secret in this country? Could, lets say hypothetically, a Congressman or a high ranking official oh, I don't know... kill a hobo. Not because the hobo was a threat to the state mind you, but just because he didn't like hobos. Could he then use the power of his position to make his bumping off of the hobo confidential and be immune from any prosecution on the act?
If the answer is yes then the Judge should dismiss immediately and there would be no accountability for their actions for anyone in the government well enough connected to get something declared a secret. It seems to me that if this were the case, Abramoff and company would have had their shenanagans declared a state secret and still be free. But maybe they just weren't well connected enough. Maybe Dick Cheney could kill a hobo, suck all his blood out of him and eat his heart in some strange ritual and have that information sealed so that he could be forever immune to prosecution.
If on the other hand an illegal act can not be declared a state secret, I think that for this motion to go forward you'd have to have a hearing on whether the wiretapping was legal in the first place. I would hope that this is the case because I want my government officials to be accountable for the things that they do.
Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer and you almost never seem cases like this where the Government's a defendant. It would seem to make sense that illegal actions could not be confidential but this area of the law does seem to be pretty vaguely defined so I wouldn't be surprised if it actually goes the other way.
Re:Question: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is this is a civil suit (Score:2)
The two were discreet, though related cas
Re:The problem is this is a civil suit (Score:2)
TWW
Re:The problem is this is a civil suit (Score:2)
Re:Question: (Score:2)
Something worthwhile (Score:2)
I just spent 1.5 hours on a second line trying to get the boneheads at ATT to fix my blooming main land-line I'd much rather the EFF sue to get ATT to provide better customer service.
Hit them in the pocketbook (Score:4, Interesting)
A few weeks ago I cancelled my at&t phone and dsl service. I'd previously been a happy & loyal customer for 7 years. I explained to the cancellation dept why I was ending my service. I spent twenty minutes arguing with the woman on the other line who refused to believe her company would do such things. So I gave her about 5 url's explaining what At&t had done, how several ex-employees had come forward, etc etc. An hour later she called me back after contacting her superiors and the companies legal dept to get their side of the story. They told her (I'm not kidding here), that AT&T was being sued by anti-privacy advocates because the company was refusing to divulge customer information.
Yes, thats right, the companies legal dept is telling the employees that they are being sued for being "too protective" of customer info.
Cancel your service. Tell them why. Make them know the cost is high when they conduct business in this manner.
Don't be so alarmist, Mister Government... (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, Government - if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear, right?
(Why does that sound familiar?...)
With news like this bad... (Score:2)
Background on national security FOIA exemption (Score:2)
Re:DANGER! DANGER! (Score:2)
Re:DANGER! DANGER! (Score:2)
Re:DANGER! DANGER! (Score:2)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
-Alexander Hamilton
It's very discouraging for a government to only check
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Nice attempt to steer the conversation, but you're wrong. The right to privacy in Roe v Wade is backed by the 14th Amendment.
One common misunderstanding is that "privacy" in the RvW decision does not have all the connotations that the English word "privacy" holds. It refers to the ability of a pers
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
This assumes a war or conflict that can be ended. If it doesn't then the whole article is rubbish and those powers could just be given to the president in all situations, not just in case of war or conflict.
It is obvious that the current govenrment is doing all it can to define the conflict in such a way that it can never be ended, hence it is clear that this conflict is in fact being used to get around the consitution.
I am not trying to suggest that the current US government would follow any racial policies or such similar to the nazi party in Germany in the 1930s, but they are most definitely trying for the same kind of abuse of the democratic system to gather as much power as they can.
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Well we do have a significant number of troops deployed in a country where tens of Iraqi civilians and US/Iraqi forces are being targetted and killed each day. I would say that, at least, qualifies as a war wouldn't you agree?
If there were no longer troops there then I would agree with you that the pres
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Self proclaimed war, providing an excuse for abuse.
You are right that that is a war, but it is not the 'war' being used initially as a general excuse for spying on US citizens however, the war quoted there is the 'war on terrorism'.
If there were no longer troops there then I would agre
"Illegal" war? (Score:2)
Mmm, illegally? Surely, you'll have no problems backing up this claim with a UN Security Council resolution condemning our resumption of hostilities againsst Iraq as such...
Put up or shut up, so to speak...
So, you are alleging, the Iraq war was an excuse created to be able to
Re:"Illegal" war? (Score:2)
For the obvious reason of the USA having a veto there, no. Do I need one? well, the USA signed the UN charter, and lacking explicit approval of the security council, the Iraq invasion is a breach of their obligations under that charter.
So, you are alleging, the Iraq war was an excuse created to be able to spy on US citizens?
No, both are
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Oh, we know when it will be over: right about the same time as the War on Drugs (tm) and "Affirmative" Action... namely, never. What's silly and dangerous is to believe that the "War on Terra" is meant to be "winnable".
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Which isn't what I was suggesting, I was however suggesting that it is NOT the type of war that is talked about by the consitution.
9/11 happened. Another will happen unless we take this seriously and acknowledge that in 1789 the authors of the Constitution could not have forseen this type of deadly "stateless" enemy.
Rubbish. The USA started out itself as a bunch of peop
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that we're in a war. 9/11 was a huge crime, but it was not carried out by the military forces of any foreign power. Maybe you could argue that Afghanistan was responsible for the attack, but we already went to war with them and that war is over. They are now simply an occupied country.
There is no war. The current situation is just as it has always been throughout the history of civilization: we live under risk that criminals will carry out terrorist acts.
In comparison to
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Considering that just a few years prior to 1789, many of the authors of the Constitution were a part of a deadly, "stateless" enemy (of Britain), I find your position laughable.
If we take your proposition at face value that things have changed and the Constitution must change with it, why has the administration not sought to do so? If they believe the Constitution is broken, surely the solution is to amend it
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
And he went ahead and declared war on an abstract concept! We've always been at war with Eurasia, you know.
As the targets of the program are terrorist or their affiliates, no reasonable person could argue
Open source supports terrorism [slashdot.org].
Copyright infrigement funds terrorism [slashdot.org].
And most importantly: You can't ask who they're really spying on [slashdot.org].
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
They're essentially claiming the existence or non-existence of any such program would be a State Secret.
For the last time, we are NOT AT WAR.... sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, there are very clear provisions for privacy in the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court already ruled on this at least once: your communications, in whatever form, are your property and you have the right to keep them private. This is why getting a wiretap is (well, was, and kinda still is, though apparently legal justice magically changes depending on which agency/department of the government you work for) so hard to obtain. This is why unauthorized wiretaps are inadmissable in court; the same rule applies to getting a warrant to search your email or whatever you use. The reason why so many people have the miconception that they don't have the right to privacy is because the rights of citizens were greatly eroded under Rehnquist, for if I recall correctly, the Rehnquist court is the reason why police can't search you when you're walking on the street but can search and open any belongings you have once you step inside a vehicle, amongst other and lesser known trespasses and limitations on personal liberties.
Oh, and lastly, FISA is completely constitutional, and very well cemented into the machinery of the federal government, as the FISA court has great authority and works a little too nicely with intelligence agencies (The infamous CARNIVORE was created at the order of the FISA court), so I don't know why Bush exhibited such baffling stupidity by giving an Executive Order to the NSA for the wiretapping (which does break the law, and the only reason there hasn't been an inquiry is because the Republican controlled House and Senate refuse to even consider any sort of legal action) instead of asking the FISA court to issue an order for the wiretapping to the NSA, which probably wouldn've been completely legal... Perhaps because even the oft-bold FISA court isn't that stupid and brazen to so openly violate the Constitution.
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
How do you know? How can you know? How can any of us know?
There is no judicial review, even by a secret court. There are no checks and balances.
The FBI agents following up on NSA reports said they were a waste of time and the FBI director questions the wiretaps's legality [nytimes.com].
>there is no privacy provision in the Constitution
Doesn't have to be. The Bill of Rights isn't meant as an exhaustive list. That's why there's a Ninth Amendment, to stop
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Correct, the bill of rights wouldn't have existed without the ninth amendment. Many were opposed to writing a bill of rights into the constitution just for the situation where the government says : "There's nothing in the constitution about that so you can't do it". The bill of rights isn
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
One cannot so simply dismiss the FISA law. It is a law on the books, and cannot be dismissed. Just because someone - ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT - thinks it is unconstitutional does not give them license to disregard it. The only
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2)
Ah, yes. The old 'there are only negative rights' argument.
No privacy, eh? Tell you what: I'm coming over. And I'm not gonna knock.
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
If the President is as certain as you are that the people being wiretapped are genuine terrorists, then why doesn't he obtain the required FISA warrants?
Re:The NSA program probably IS Constitutional-WWII (Score:2)
You also only have the words of proven liers that these are the people actually being targeted.
Are you also aware that we have only declared war against a general idea (terrorism).
Not even that. Governments only tend to be interested in prosecuting a minority of terrorists in the first place,