Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA? 188
Nerval's Lobster writes "When the GCHQ agency (Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) reportedly decided to infiltrate the IT network of Belgian telecommunications firm Belgacom, it relied on a sophisticated version of a man-in-the-middle attack, in which it directed its targets' computers to fake, malware-riddled versions of Slashdot and LinkedIn. If the attack could be proven without a doubt, would the GCHQ—or any similar spy agency engaging in the same sort of behavior—be liable for violating trademarks or copyrights, since a key part of its attack would necessitate the appropriation of intellectual property such as logos and content? We asked someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about that, and received a somewhat dispiriting answer. "From a trademark perspective, if a company uses another company's marks/logos to deceive, there may be a trademark claim," said Corynne McSherry, the EFF's Intellectual Property Director. "But it's complicated a bit by two problems: (1) the fact that while there may be confusion, it's not necessarily related to the actual purchase of any goods and services; and (2) multiple TM laws are in play here—for example UK trademark law may have different exceptions and limitations." McSherry also addressed other issues, including governments' doctrine of sovereign immunity."
Sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
And magically drugs appear inside your house plus pictures of you fondling kids.
Re:Sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a gym bag, not a suitcase..
This was made famous by Salvador Allende when he committed suicide by airstrike and shooting himself 37 times.
Re:Sue them... (Score:4)
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage
Intentional torts
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort.
Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion.
Further, in the article talking about the specific Federal Tort Claims Act...
However, the FTCA does not exempt intentional torts for "investigative or law enforcement officers," allowing aggrieved individuals to bring lawsuits
Attacking a civilian owned computer system is definitely violation of property rights.
Also, the action they are taking is directly forbidden in the United States constitution.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
...
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
...
One threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred.
...
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property"
I'd argue that inserting malware is again, "meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property".
Re:Sue them... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah whatever. How about the State Secrets Doctrine which really took hold after the widows of some RCA engineers sued the USAF after the plane their husbands were on crashed (they were testing some equipment). The widows wanted the crash report, the USAF said it contained secrets. No judge, not even any on the Supreme Court, ever checked to see if the USAF was flat out lying. Which they were as it turns out. 40 years later when the accident report was declassified, it contained no national security level secrets. It did contain information that the USAF neglected to maintain the plane properly and neglected to install heat shields in the engines -- a manufacturer recommended modification to prevent engine fires. The plane that killed the geeks on board suffered engine fires exactly like those the modification was designed to prevent.
So yeah, the Feds have waived SI to some extent, but that won't stop them from lying to everyone and anyone, even the Supreme Court, in order to cover up malfeasance and negligence.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/october_2008/books.cfm [dcbar.org]
The State Secrets Doctrine has been used by the Feds to get away with all kinds of crap, most recently of course, with a focus telecommunications masspionage, preventing people who were innocent and tortured from seeking redress, and so forth. As for the 4th Amendment -- it's a joke because of the Third Party Doctrine which equates "reasonable expectation of privacy" to "complete and total secrecy." Anything that is not absolutely secret has no 4th Amendment protection, and if you think about, barely anything in modern life does not include third parties in some way. The whole fucking post 9/11 debacle has the Feds using the State Secrets Doctrine and the Third Party Doctrine as a bulldozer to burry every American ideal we've pretended to revere for centuries.
So again, whatever. If a Fed. agent dings your bumper, the Feds will pay out, but the sovereign immunity waiver is only for such trivial things. If it matters, the Feds will fuck you over till Christmas, and then kick you in the teeth before taking a crap on you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. There is an unwritten exception for Federal Employees of course. For example, see James Clapper lying to Congress about scooping up phone data. Lying to Congress is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Clapper hasn't even lost his job, let alone faced prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
So sad, to see such severe depression go untreated and proceed to such a spectacular self-harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the way the pedophilia moral panic will ruin your life and the lives of all your relatives, I would call death the lucky option.
Re: (Score:3)
Though an unpopular opinion, I am absolutely behind the idea that the identity of any person accused of a crime should not be released to the public until after conviction, regardless of crime committed. It's far too easy to smear someone with baseless accusations, especially if they're of a sexual nature.
Re: (Score:3)
And magically drugs appear inside your house plus pictures of you fondling kids.
These days, no such trouble is necessary. They'll just come get you and haul you off indefinitely with no explanation. At least, that's the case in the US. Maybe the Brits are better protected from their government.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Better protected? We are worse off.. :(
Like trying to sue toe mafia (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely that politicians will even come close enough to touch that leash, they're well aware that the intel agencies have pretty much unlimited access to any mercenary group they want in exchange for some minor favor. "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge" and your kid disappears for a week and comes back a heroin junkie.
Re: (Score:3)
It's simpler than even that. Reining in a "national security agency" means being able to be painted as "weak on national security" in the next election. No politician wants that as it's basically political suicide. If there's a huge amount of anger over such an agency's actions, they'll hold hearings and introduce "leash" bills that actually do nothing to rein in the agency - to say that they worked for the people - but they won't actually DO anything.
Re:Like trying to sue the mafia (Score:2)
Re:Sue them... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you have a lot of faith in British law enforcement and security.
No, you'll suddenly decide to kill yourself just before you're going to present important information, like David Kelly. Or you'll commit a minor infraction like jumping a ticket barrier and be shot a few times for "oh he was totally about to set off a bomb", a la Jean Charles de Menezes. Or you'll have a heart attack after being lightly handled by a police officer during a protest, like Ian Tomlinson.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting there is a think tank for "unexplained deaths" to come up with new, plausible ways to remove irritating people.
The "small plane crash" is notorious for Latin American leaders standing in the way of multinational profits. There's many ways to cause heart attacks. Perforations with an ice gun that leaves nothing but a small hole (been around for decades).
So yeah -- you bring up some good cases of deaths that make you go "hmmm".
It's important for dastardly deeds to have some level of novelty, so th
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is, I don't hate cops. I totally understand the stress they're under whether they're policing high-crime areas or grandma's backyard (just before they shoot her based on a crack-addict's "tip"). As individuals, I'm still confident they're no different than anybody else on the street.
However, corporate ownership of the government and the unwillingness of even "good" cops (and prosecutors) to hold other cops accountable for misdeeds, forces the pu
Re: (Score:2)
Erm - the guy that jumped the ticket barrier. A bunch of explosive devices had just gone off in London on public transport, the police were actively searching for more terrorists. This guy fitted the description of the bombers, had a back pack (as they did) and ran from armed officers towards a train station. I am not surprised he was shot. It was a very unfortunate set of events and his death was a terrible tragedy. But shit happens sometimes.
No one from David Kelly's immediate family are saying anything t
Re: (Score:3)
1) I didn't realise that jumping a ticket barrier while looking a bit Arab was sufficient grounds for being shot several times. I must have been dreaming through the twenty-five years my father and I lived through IRA bombings in London as commuters using the underground, running around looking like Arabs, and never being shot.
This included the time my foreigner-with-a-suitcase father had to run from a bomb which had just gone off. Thank goodness our services weren't always this incompetent;
2) Can you think
Re: (Score:3)
Erm - the guy that jumped the ticket barrier <snip> ...
He didn't jump any ticket barrier [wikipedia.org]. The "jumped the ticket barrier" comment was attributed at the time to an eyewitness but it has been alleged that it was in fact one of the police officers involved (and if that's true then it appears consistent with the idea of the Met realising their mistake and trying to smear him through this and other 'off the record' briefings to the press with the aim of making themselves look less incompetent).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Add the fact that you can not sue the government unless you get permission from the government to sue them.
Yes this is a real thing.
Sovereign immunity is a real bitch.
Re:Sue them... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sovereign immunity is a real bitch.
Got that one right. I'm a disabled vet as a direct result of a shipyard accident in the US Navy. Both the Navy and VA really fucked up by not following up on neurological problems that developed over the next few years. Bone spurs were forming in the cervical (neck) vertabrae, slicing through the spinal cord. What should of happened is that when they found the symptoms were not a result of damage outside the spine, they should have done an MRI. Oops. The Veteran's Administration also failed to follow up for an additional seven years over the Navy's four before doing the MRI. Then they waited for another four years before telling me that I'm inoperable and terminal. Oops! I have a team of doctors, now, at the VA who can't help me on the pain issues or much of anything else other than trying to keep me from killing myself as I have done, unsatisfactorily, over a dozen times. Whatever.
The actual point of the post is that my medical team keep pushing me to sue the US Navy and the VA for malpractice (and the US Navy for wrongful termination
Now, I do like to keep track of these things, but the last lawsuit that did go through, well this cardiac surgeon killed 60+ (65?) patients. A bunch of people kept going before a judge to certify and finally, FINALLY, after killing all those people, they're allowed to sue for malpractice. Fortunately,.I'm not to the point of really blaming anybody. I should have pushed for other tests beyond the electro-myelogram [it tickled, which is NOT a good thing for an EMG, in case you've never had one. Almost every patient screams.] For all our experience in delivering destruction, it's funny that you hardly ever going postal at the VA facilities or the courthouse. Lucky, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw you will just go broke trying to win.
Re: (Score:2)
not even that
your case will be thrown out of court. you cant sue another country for spying on you
Re:Sue them... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI ciderbrew is referring to an actual event, albeit speculatively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That has been in the news again recently.
MI6 Spy in a bag Gareth Williams 'probably locked himself inside it' [standard.co.uk]
Two experts, working for the coroner, tried 400 times to lock themselves into the North Face bag and one claimed even Harry Houdini “would have struggled” to squeeze himself inside.
But days after the inquest a retired Army sergeant showed that it was possible and now police believe it was possible to do so. Mr Williams, a fitness fanatic, had an interest in escapology and confined spaces, visiting little known websites on the internet.
Spy In Bag: MI6 Man Probably Locked Himself In [sky.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In December 2010, police released further details, stating that Williams had visited a number of bondage websites.
The coroner rejected suicide,... She said his visits to bondage websites only occurred intermittently and were not of a frequency to indicate an active interest.
Good to see that always on, always recording spy network being put to good use...
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Re: (Score:3)
Surely, there is a very simple method to do something about it.
When the state oversteps its boundary, it is time to replace the state. If not in orderly fashion, then with force. It is called revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, and when other states want to invade and conquer your state then you need to be able to defend against your enemies, hence a military and intelligence gathering system
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
Surely, there is a very simple method to do something about it.
When the state oversteps its boundary, it is time to replace the state. If not in orderly fashion, then with force. It is called revolution.
Welcome to the NSA watch list.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that I thought we discovered (thanks Snowden! I'm going to name my first born after you!) that everyone who uses the Internet is already on the NSA watch-list. Hmm?
Merely calling for world revolution to bring about an international communist* society would have put me on the watch-list years ago. So far nothing obviously negative has happened to me.
* I actually call for an anarchist society. But think that any long-lasting anarchist society will end up being communist (classless and free) anyway. Als
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who continues to travel to the US for any reason by default agrees with their trade, domestic surveillance, and foreign policies. Sadly the UK isn't far behind them in this regard, and in some instances is worse, but that's just a feature of where I was born. We'll see at the next General Election just how much of the populace agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, there is a very simple method to do something about it.
When the state oversteps its boundary, it is time to replace the state. If not in orderly fashion, then with force. It is called revolution.
Welcome to the NSA watch list.
Seriously...you think my post was informative? You guys are weird...
The answer is no. (Score:3)
Betteridge's law wins again!
Re: (Score:3)
No, you can definitely sue them.
Winning...? That's another question.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other questions to be considered as well, like "What is your goal?". If you file with the intention of drawing attention to the issue then you may achieve that goal even if it is never heard in any court the case could still be tried in public opinion with the help of the media.
Re: (Score:2)
...with the help of the media.
I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I said "may" but I think what you noticed I left out is that you need to be a manipulative genius to get them to report what you want them to. {Some CEOs are really good at that but not from some random little company}
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how it's spun. If it's presented as a censorship issue, where Big Bad Gubment could have replaced the Slashdot stories with their own, then the media's more likely to talk about it. As the story goes now, it's James Bond using a clever bit of infiltration to get intelligence on a highly-specific enemy. Nobody's going to get properly outraged about it, and it certainly won't sell more dead trees.
Re: (Score:2)
You could certainly try to sue them.
Whether you would succeed or not (or live to see whether you succeeded or not) is another story.
Re: (Score:2)
Winning? You'll be hard pressed to find a court that will even accept jurisdiction over the case.
Isn't it technically the job of the Supreme Court to handle cases like these?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But which one?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But which one?
Er...The supremest one I guess. I don't know the American Legal system, being not american and all that.
A trademark claim might not be the best (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny you would bring that up because, the opposite is actually a great example of the point in question.
http://barkgrowlbite.blogspot.com/2012/07/dea-stole-big-semi-in-sting-operation.html [blogspot.com]
So far so good. DEA bribed one of his own drivers to steal the truck from his employer to be used in the operation..... long story short, truck gets shot up, driver killed. Insurance company and DEA both refuse to pay for any damages.
Now this isn't over, I assume there will be court battles but, his case is different. This case involves physical evidence and facts that can't be just denied out of hand....and they are still refusing to do anything and making him sue. This is how they act when caught red handed and unable to deny the facts.... there is no chance of getting anything from a secretive org that can declare the facts national security interests.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a vague recollection of something like that. I'm not sure if I saw in the news or a movie.
I did however see this when I did a quick search.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/13/man-accused-impersonating-cop-to-get-dunkin-donuts-discounts/ [foxnews.com]
Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (Score:5, Informative)
The Complete Perversion of the Law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. It also settles legal disputes between EU governments and EU institutions. Individuals, companies or organisations can also bring cases before the Court if they feel their rights have been infringed by an EU institution.
Find an EU law that the UK government has broken (shouldn't be too hard!), and then file a case. If the case is from an individual, then the European Court of Human Rights [coe.int] may be an alternative. (IAANL, so YMMV)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT - governments are special; essentially you can't sue them unless they agree to allow it.
In the UK, unlike in the US, there is no longer automatic sovereign immunity for the government from suits for contract or tort. However the legislation which governs the intelligence services is so very broadly drawn that I suspect that anything and everything they do is always legal (or, at least, can be authorised ex post facto by a minister without the involvement of parliament or a court and thus made legal). That leaves, perhaps, seeking a judicial review of the authorising minister's decision but I'm
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. GCHQ moves to dismiss your case on grounds which it cannot specify for reasons of national security. Game Over.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud, damage to reputation, loss of business.
These all sound like more fruitful avenues than pursuing a trademark violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot claiming damage to reputation?
It's like Paris Hilton suing far having her chastity questioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when you do it for national security, then they give themselves an exemption.
You could try, but I suspect the judge would get told that, due to national security reasons, the trial may not proceed and you have no standing to sue.
Suing a government is tough when it's about matters they can control so tightly. And damned near impossible when it's something like the NSA or GCHQ.
Hell, I suspect they'd just charge you as a terrorist
Re: (Score:2)
REDACTED Court of REDACTED
Judgement in re: REDACTED v REDACTED:
The Court finds that REDACTED has no standing to sue REDACTED because REDACTED
Signed this REDACTED day of REDACTED, REDACTED
REDACTED
Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, sir/madam!
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal was to infect you, you have a much better standing using the laws on breaching private IT networks, since have lots of teeth and over-broad reach given who sponsored them...
The hacked you? Get a judge to hand out hackers minimum sentences!
[/dreaming]
You know that means suing a foreign government? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm... "Good luck with that" is the first answer that comes to mind.
On the other hand, one potential legal solution who go something like this:
- Get Belgacom on your side ; /. site by GCHQ ;
- Find the person(s) at Belgacom who have been infected through the fake
- Sue GCHQ and the UK government in Belgian and UK courts - yes, I think there are some jurisdictions that will hear cases even if their protagonists are out-of-country and Belgium may be one (some Rwanda genocide cases were tried in Belgium if I remember correctly) ;
- Get the case thrown out of court repeatedly all the way to the local equivalent of the Supreme Court ;
- Appeal all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (which is, according to the EU Charter, one step above local Supreme Court);
- Profit! Well, only if the European Court of Human Rights decide that, yes, there is a clear violation of due process and invasion of privacy, etc... Which, in that particular case, seems pretty much open-and-shut at this point.
In other words: this is definitely a case the European EFF should take on immediately, on behalf of /. and the person (and corporations! Belgacom was, after all, the subjectaffected - it will take years and stupendous amounts of money, but, heck that's why Kickstarter is for (I would send money immediately to such a project!).
Try suing in different jurisdictions at the same time - the French governement - in that particular case, is begging for someone to come and kick its butt, Germany also sounds like a prime candidate, as well as some of the Scandinavian countries.
The interesting side of this case is that it could result in a binding ECHR court decision that would force all European governements - not just the UK - to rein in and place GCHQ and others (DGSE anyone?). It would probably take years and a lot more money and a lot more suing to make them all apply this ruliong in their respective jurisdictions, but it would be money well spent (IMHO).
Please don't quote me on this - IANAL even though I play one on /. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Belgium. ICC is based in the Netherlands, which is right next door to Belgium, so to speak.
The ICC has no particular jurisdiction over European affairs - and it only deals with "serious" criminality, such as genocide, torture, ethnic cleansing, etc.
(Don't misunderstand me: it is a valid court of justice and it definitely has a role to play - but its area of expertise is murder on a grand scale, not spying on a grand scale).
Belgian courts, from Belgium - again, this is if I remember well (I may be totall
Re: (Score:2)
Of Course (Score:3)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Informative)
Not if the second "anybody" is the government. Unless the government consents to being sued (in othe words, there is a law allowing citzens to sue the government over that particular injury) the government will merely plead sovereign immunity and the suit will the thrown out of court.
Functionally, No. (Score:5, Informative)
"In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States)\
Did you REALLY think there would be another answer?
Re:Functionally, No. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage
Intentional torts
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion.
Further, in the article talking about the specific Federal Tort Claims Act...
However, the FTCA does not exempt intentional torts for "investigative or law enforcement officers," allowing aggrieved individuals to bring lawsuits
Not a chance in hell ... (Score:3)
See, they have secret laws which say what they're doing is legal.
The government would essentially have to consent to being sued, which they won't.
As long as the position of the government is "what we do is legal, and even where we might skirt around the law, it's still legal. And we don't care about the rights of citizens of other countries." -- they can do anything they like and call it legal.
I figure your lawsuit would last about 20 minutes before it got tossed out, or the government basically said "we don't care, we're not showing up, too bad". Short of some pretty heavy diplomatic pressure (still likely to do nothing), my guess is you have absolutely zero recourse.
Secondary contributory infringement (Score:2)
A better choice might be to sue those well known private companies that helped the agencies do this, the enablers so to speak. Make it annoying enough and these companies may think twice about co-operating so freely next time.
You're welcome to try (Score:3)
Go Ahead and Sue: (Score:2)
Lily Tomlin Said: "We don't care, we don't have to...we're the phone company."
Similarly: "We don't care. We don't have to... we're the GCHQ."
Re: (Score:2)
That in a public, historical and legal setting.... vs a gov legal team that wants the court closed to the public, that all court staff are security cleared if the case is to be allowed to continue?
Cisco down 10% (Score:2)
This is due to their complicity with the NSA so it's hard to argue that they should be compensated for losses unless they had complete assurance that "no one would find out." In which case, the NSA failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
I'd like to say "I told you so!" to all those people out there who responded with doubt that the NSA's activities will undermine the value of US products and services, but it's out there now. Cisco is down 10% and falling.
SSL (Score:2)
Isn't it time slashdot implemented ssl? Perhaps a self signed key that is widely publicised ahead of time. Also, sue them in US Federal court for violation of US laws. This type of thing happens all the time.
rally the users (Score:2)
While I'm sure the Corporate Parents of slashdot and linked in are in all sorts of rage and feeling dirty and used, think of the users. As a user of both, I'm certainly displeased.
A virtual protest may be asynchronous, but could go on for quite some time. It could be one more thing encouraging the less corrupt elements to help reign in such abuses.
deal with the criminal element first (Score:2)
for the law to apply, it must apply to ALL in equal measure.
Just from the summary, I can say that the law certainly has been broken. The Computer Misuse Act specifically forbids unauthorised interception of network signals - as has clearly happened here. It also specifically forbids unauthorised manipulation of computer code - as has clearly happened here. I could write a list, but I'll leave that exercise for the guys and legals at Dice. Hint: write the informations against the Corporate Director at GCHQ a
Defamation and loss of reputation (Score:2)
Comments owned by the poster. (Score:3)
There's a pretty clear copyright claim here. Every poster owns the copyright to their posts, and there is no license granted to anyone but Dice.
Of course, to pursue such action we'd have to have a government that obeyed the rule of law. But that is not the case.
What if it is just a proxy? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maps, colourful charts, cross examination, witnesses, clearances, front companies, funding, tax, laws... contracts, who knew what and when... who pulled a "national security" and will not be attending court?
The daily acts of 'not recalling' and that hardware 'team' been cleared by 'someone' and 'sometime'... all makes for great optics.
If you win the case its a "win"
If
security to trump IP (Score:2)
Sovereign Immunity (Score:2)
No, you can't sue the government.
Because if you could, we could shut down NSA wiretapping in a heartbeat by bringing a massive class action suit against them, where every victim of a crime that could have been prevented by NSA surveillance between 2005 and 2013 would be a member of the class.
If you ever watch "Person of Interest" that's exactly the kind of crimes I'm talking about -- the "irrelevant list" of criminals that are ignored because they don't touch national security.
What the hell good is a police
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL, hosts file wouldn't save you, the national-intelligence-level threats are tapping straight into the wire so you continue to access the same IP address everyone else does, but only in your case does it go to their server.
I thought it was quiet here lately... (Score:2)
Just sayin'...
Re: (Score:2)
He finally realized that the HOSTS file wasn't going to go far enough to protect him.
He then went to the next stage - ifconfig eth0 down
Re: (Score:2)
Even this won't help you, with high frequency sound based hacks. A bootstraped USB device is all they need to kick this off.
Re: (Score:2)
When AC makes a statement, dont trust it.
No, you cannot sue the US government without its permission due to sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org].
And in the future if you dont know, its best not to speak authoritatively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Desperation.