Slashdot Log In
EFF Case Against AT&T To Go Forward
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jul 20, 2006 04:34 PM
from the beauty dept.
from the beauty dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
EFF Sues AT&T Over NSA Wiretapping 746 comments
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.'"
[+]
U.S. Government Moves To Dismiss EFF Case 219 comments
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.
[+]
U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T 463 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that the US government has 'filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.' More from the article: " In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker." You may recall a few weeks ago when the DOJ asked the judge to dismiss the case. They've now taken the next step required to quash this legal action.
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.
I Like His Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the "terrorists" might've won.
But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Funny)
<voice=texan>
An' they hate us for our freedom. So...
</voice>
> But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.
<voice=texan>
Yeah, it's all your fault! Fer six years some folks have been complaining that the government isn't listening to the people... an' now that it does, y'all are haulin' us into court for it! What gives?
</voice>
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Funny)
You sound like one of them Cee-En-En types.
Don' chew know that all them thar activist judges is filthy lib'rals?
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny. Every time I hear a very stereotypically "conservative" American talking about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed (or even injured) by some nebulous "terrorist" bogeyman-of-the-week.
The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with blind hatred of the Bush administration, and by extension, the military and intelligence communities.
The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with a blind hatred of anything they perceive as "liberal."
The issue here is not the NSA listening in on one particular person giving a recipe to a friend. It is the mentality that a surveillance society is a good thing. The NSA wiretaps are a product of that mentality, with the logical conclusion of it being totalitarianism. That is why people like me want to see programs like this smashed *now*, before they get even more out of hand.
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americ
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but I wouldn't if I knew we were going to just go and screw it up like we're doing now!
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Informative)
>they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been.
Patrick Henry said
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is who it's being applied to. Private citizens have a right to privacy (that's why they're called "private!"); the government does not.
Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, if you have a few bucks, they could probably use it. I realize it's only our basic liberties, but let's be honest -- if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.
Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow (Score:3, Funny)
too bad we can't waste it on girls.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not like that. It's more like this:
"If you have been truthful to previous investigaters about your involvement in this, you won't mind us investigating your pal over here for any wrong-doing on his part."
The US Govt. tried to have the case against AT&T thrown out - not a case against itself. It's quite a diffrent matter.
Soko
More like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the Government isn't a defendent, and as the US has no meaningful concept of "contempt of court" or perjury, the court can't do anything about it if the Government is found guilty of lying. On the other hand, this is election year, which is not a good year to be found guilty of anything, even if there is nothing the courts can do.
My guess is that the Government will do anything and everything to stall proceedings, such that if there is a trial, there's absolutely no risk of anything embarassing being said before polling day. If they're in power, they can clean things up afterwards. If they're not, it's no longer their problem.
Re:More like... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More like... (Score:3, Informative)
You also seem to forget that Clinton w
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
Absolutely.
The government is supposed to be "surveilled" by the public. It is our responsibility to watch the government as closely as we can. It's not hypocritical to object to cameras on street corners but to lobby for cameras in police cars. They work for us, not the other way around.
How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most epople consider improperly authorized surveillance an abuse, I think you'll find.
I think you
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
Certain portions of the mis-named Patriot Act make it illegal to shout about it.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:4, Funny)
It's not mis-named; the Ministry of Truth named it that on purpose!
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I mean it's not like they've been using it to discover reporter's confidential sources [abcnews.com] or anything.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you believe everything the government tells you, hunh? I think it's quite remarkable you can d
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they weren't. If thats all they were aimed at, the government would get a *warrant* against them. You know, like they've done hundreds of times in the past. The government was data mining the phone records of the *entire nation* not of specific people.
On a side rant- known terrorists? Its been proven in a court of law? Or they confessed to it? No? Then they aren't known terrorist, they're *suspected* terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty.
Shame on them? No, shame on you. Shame on you for throwing away our freedoms, shame on you for pissing all over the Constitution. And shame on the rest of America for letting sheep like you throw away what generations have fought and died for.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
My God. Your post makes me want to weep. Partly because I'm just so thrilled to see someone stand up for the Constitution is such stark terms. But partly because it's completely sad to think that a post like yours is rare enough to evoke such a reaction. :(
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how do we know that wasn't what the NSA wa
A First in History (Score:4, Interesting)
sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite a Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the US justice system working? We'll have to wait and see...
The balance begins to reassert itself. (Score:5, Interesting)
Judicial branch doing it's job (Score:5, Interesting)
YES! (Score:3, Interesting)
*does a little dance*
*realises that we still have a LONG way to go*
*frowns*
I'm stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand how invading a country protects my freedom. Or how, terrorists threaten my freedom. They can blow shit up all they want, but I still have freedom of speech and religion. Or how by violating our civil rights, our Government protects our freedom. How is this true??
The only threat to my freedom has been my own Government. They are the ones (and unfortunately, the majority is letting them) who are trying to restrict the freedom of the press with their lawsuits over leaks. They are the ones who are violating citizens rights by spying on them.
This case is protecting our rights and fredoms that, let's see, were violated by our Government.
I'd rather live free and live with the vry remote possiblity of dying in a terrorist attach than having my Government take my rights away to protect my Freedom!
I've been voting and writing letters, but, unfortunately, the cowards run the show.
Re:I'm stupid (Score:3, Informative)
[...]
Irony, thy name is slashdot.
Re:I'm stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
When people talk about freedom (real freedom, not the politician's word), what are they talking about? FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT.
Governments are to be feared. The natural tendency of any government to expand it's power over it's people must be continuously fought.
One step closer (Score:3, Informative)
Misleading Ars Article Title (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, he's saying that, yes, there are state secrets, but the judiciary -- not the executive -- is responsible for determining how trials involving state secrets proceed. This idea of someone crying 'State Secrets!!!1!!1!one!11!!!' and automatically getting a case tossed out is relatively new, and, as most of us here believe, contrary to the basic premise of the court system.
The way we protect liberty will have to change (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The amount of information government truly needs to gather to protect us is also sufficient to greatly threaten our liberty.
2. Governments will inevitably gather much more information than they really need.
As a result, it is necessary to design legal systems (and where possible to restrain the design of technical systems) so that even though government has the information, it doesn't commonly use it in nefarious ways. I've written a series of articles about that. Most of them can be found starting from the link http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/06/freedom-ev
Examples of why we should expect government to gather huge amounts of information include, in no particular order:
A. All the call/e-mail/whatever connection information they're already getting, as documented in the news around NSA surveillance, AT&T's involvement, and so on.
B. Laws to require ISPs or information service providers to keep records of which IP addresses connect to which sites (so as to fight child porn, piracy, whatever).
C. Britain's moves towards complete video tracking of car movements (I get my reporting on this from The Register).
D. Credit card transaction records.
E. Forthcoming integrated electronic health records. (Those will have huge benefits to the saving of lives, quality of life, cost and efficiency of health care, etc. Whatever the privacy risks, they need to be managed so that health care is allowed to improve.)
And that's even without mentioning RFID.
What's slowing all this down is some political opposition, plus the huge technical difficulty of the required system integration projects. But in a small number of decades, it will all have happened. Our laws and oversight systems need to have evolved drastically by then. We have to start now.
I'm definitely not saying that we should cripple government in gathering and using information. Indeed, I'm an advisor to Cogito, a company with some of the most powerful relationship analysis software out there. http://www.dbms2.com/category/object-oriented-and
Re:Btw... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:no career ambitions (Score:5, Informative)
VAUGHN not JOHN Walker (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe a carerr limiting move - depends on who gets elected in 2008!
There is already a faction in Congress trying to move the 9th District C of A (known to be a bunch of crazy motherf**er liberal hippies) to Bois
Re:VAUGHN not JOHN Walker (Score:5, Informative)
Aw crap... in researching the judge I did a more general search and pulled up the wrong judge.
Oddly, the real Judge Vaughn Walker was also appointed by Reagan and then appointed Chief Justice by George H. W. Bush. But, as you state, to the N.D. of California, not to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (which is in an entirely different part of the country).
So this probably was a "career limiting" move if the neo-cons retain control of the Republican party. They certainly won't reward him with a Appelatte court position and the Democrats are unlikely to appoint a conservative judge to the 9th.
Which makes it an even better story really... since it means that he's likely ruling with the law rather than with politics. And, better yet, it means the appeal has to go to the 9th Appellate court, which is unlikely to overturn his decision.
Someone go mod down my earlier post. Thanks.
Re:Some degree of balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, unhampered security groups do lead to invasions and killing of hundred of thousands of people. Personally I don't think that the NSA is even remotly comparable to the Gestopo, but what if in 20 years a power hungry psycho uses the massive amount of power we let the NSA have today to declare a defacto dictatorship?
If we make the Presidency so powerful and unhampered as well as its agencies then corrupt evil people desiring power will seek this position. We must keep the Presidents and security groups in check so that this never happens.