EFF Tells Court That the NSA Knowingly and Illegally Destroyed Evidence 269
An anonymous reader writes in with this latest bit of EFF vs NSA news. 'We followed the back and forth situation earlier this year, in which there were some legal questions over whether or not the NSA needed to hang onto surveillance data at issue in various lawsuits, or destroy it as per the laws concerning retention of data. Unfortunately, in the process, it became clear that the DOJ misled FISA court Judge Reggie Walton, withholding key information. In response, the DOJ apologized, insisting that it didn't think the data was relevant — but also very strongly hinting that it used that opportunity to destroy a ton of evidence. However, this appeared to be just the latest in a long history of the NSA/DOJ willfully destroying evidence that was under a preservation order.
The key case where this evidence was destroyed was the EFF's long running Jewel v. NSA case, and the EFF has now told the court about the destruction of evidence, and asked the court to thus assume that the evidence proves, in fact, that EFF's clients were victims of unlawful surveillance. The DOJ/NSA have insisted that they thought that the EFF's lawsuit only covered programs issued under executive authority, rather than programs approved by the FISA Court, but the record in the case shows that the DOJ seems to be making this claim up.'
The key case where this evidence was destroyed was the EFF's long running Jewel v. NSA case, and the EFF has now told the court about the destruction of evidence, and asked the court to thus assume that the evidence proves, in fact, that EFF's clients were victims of unlawful surveillance. The DOJ/NSA have insisted that they thought that the EFF's lawsuit only covered programs issued under executive authority, rather than programs approved by the FISA Court, but the record in the case shows that the DOJ seems to be making this claim up.'
Dear Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Has Slashdot ever received a FISA letter?
Re:Dear Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they have. Nothing you do on the Internet is anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby request for a canary clause!
At least let me know if the puir bird is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
1) No, posting AC isn't really anonymous.
2) No FISA letter is needed. Transmissions aren't encrypted. (Well, perhaps they are now, they weren't until recently. Now my browser hides the communications protocol, so I can't easily tell. But https is not more secure than your ISP. Why try to do a site-by-site breach of security when a man-in-the-middle is already in place.)
Re: (Score:2)
HTTPS isn't "not more secure than your ISP." It's not more secure than the worst trusted root CA. In the absence of a CA compromise, your ISP cannot MitM HTTPS or other SSL-based protocols without your browser/client warning you about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to know how to decrypt this information. The way of doing that is sent over the Internet, which can easily be MitMed.
Yes the "way of doing that" *is* sent over the internet encrypted specifically to prevent a mitm attack. The whole fucking point of encryption is to prevent a mitm attack. So if you've got some new information showing that mitm attacks are actually easy (e.g. you solved the RSA problem, etc), then lets hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.engadget.com/2014/0... [engadget.com]
Recall http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org] for the real fun
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, OPEC employees post on slashdot? That explains a lot...
Re: (Score:2)
Source: Wireshark capture when I previewed this post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on certain real world experiences
Like what?
Destroying evidence should have worse penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario. So I agree with the EFF. Destroying evidence = automatically guilty of accusations. Have a nice day.
Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to the court stipulating that whatever the EFF had claimed the evidence said: everyone down the chain of management that was responsible for knowingly ordering destruction of evidence involved with their case, should be criminally prosecuted personally, (or impeached, if a cabinet official or elected official).
Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario. So I agree with the EFF. Destroying evidence = automatically guilty of accusations. Have a nice day.
The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish? Ok, the court rules that they illegally spied on US citizens. They tell the NSA that they have to stop doing that. The NSA says, "fine - we were never doing it in the first place, and we'll continue to not do it." Then they keep doing what they've been doing all along, which they define as not being illegal spying by whatever contortions they apply.
It isn't like the court is going to make somebody go to jail if the law is broken. If YOU spy on somebody illegally you'll get locked up for it. If the government does it, well, I guess the rules just must not have been clear enough.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?
For years the courts have been throwing out cases because "you can't prove anything" meant that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
If the court stipulates that the plaintiffs were spied on, then they have standing to sue, and the case can move forward.
Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?
Let me ask you a question: Do you really and truly believe that taking no action will make things better, worse, or will the corruption remain the same? In the best case scenario, things remain the same (being illegal and unconstitutional). Historically however, inaction more often results in things becoming worse. Inaction never results in things improving, at least for the recipients of the abuse.
Many constitutional rights violations are felonies. Convicted felons can not hold a security clearance and can not work for an agency such as the NSA in any capacity. Other agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, do have jobs that do not require a clearance, but depending on the job classification can (and often do) restrict convicted felons from filling those positions.
Any cabinet member can be impeached by Congress, and the reasons for impeachment include misdemeanor offenses. In other words, Congress can remove the head of the NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, etc... by vote. The primary motivation for impeachment is very sensitive to issues of Constitutional violations (see this [infoplease.com] for a reference).
The false analogy you provide, of "no punishemtn" or "go to jail" is simply not true. Being banned from working a career you have spent your life doing is a punishment, as is being barred from holding jobs or offices in the future, loss of retirement, etc...
We would probably agree that the punishment may not be severe enough. If you believe that doing nothing is a better answer, you are not thinking very clearly. Exactly why do you think we have numerous historical quotes from people telling you to take action? Like Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the
Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
or Edmund Burke
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty (Score:5, Informative)
In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario
That is exactly what is supposed to happen, it is called spoilation of evidence [uslegal.com] and is very frowned upon. The penalties are supposed to include inferring that the missing evidence is beneficial to the opposing party and civil and criminal penalties against whomever destroyed the evidence. Though I doubt that will happen in this case.
Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty (Score:4, Insightful)
No the logical rule is that purposefully destroying is the crime, neither proving nor disproving the crime related to that evidence and the originating accusation. However, the penalty applied for the destruction of evidence is the crux of the matter, in destroying the evidence of a crime the penalty should be more severe or treated as if it was the maximum possible infringement of the accused crime. The is to motivate people to preserve the evidence so that everyone knows what is going on and government and society can react to the breach on order to take step to repeat it's repetition. In destroying evidence of a crime, you are destroying the ability of society to take corrective measures and thus it affects the whole of society, well beyond those directly affected in the actual breach of law. It will also make it a pretty stupid act to destroy evidence of a lessor crime than the one you were accused of.
The whole principle of a public trial is so that everyone can know what is going on. That any claims are proven, that actions of government are substantiated, when it does the accusing and when it is the accused. It is not about simply mindlessly punishing people. It is all about what happened, why it happened, what can be done to remediate it and how it can be prevented in future.
Take for example the worst most heinous possible criminal. Simply executing them based upon a confession is completely and utterly pointless. Knowing exactly what they done, how they done, proof of this to ensure no guilty party goes free whether as a result of a false confession or those associated with the crime. This helps to gain knowledge to reduce the chances of repetition of the crime. Just like keeping the perpetrator alive as a subject of medical research, genetics, psychological and future pharmacological research associated with prevention of that crime, so not just about being able to release them if they are latter proven innocent. Those who commit the worst crimes are the most valuable research tools in order to prevent those crimes that they committed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called 'spoilation inference', and actually works kinda like that. Not so much an automatic guilty as "the destroyed evidence shows conscience of guilt and therefore strongly supports the opposing side".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's lots of worst cases.
Say, Obama is actually the lead of an alien invasion force who plans on harvesting Earthlings as food. That would suck.
Or that another Bush will get elected to the presidency. That would definitely suck. Someone would have to invade Iraq again.
Or they'll cancel Marvel's Agents of SHIELD. That would be terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ultimately that's up to the judge. Destruction of evidence in a case can have certain criminal penalties but most of the time it winds up being at the discretion
of the judge to sanction or in some cases hold the willing party in contempt. We'd all like to believe that the legal system is fair and balanced but we know differently. For example, In a criminal case where prosecution destroys evidence this usually means the judge will throw the case out. I presume now that the judge is thoroughly pisse
And nothing will be done. (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA could admit that they break the law every day of the week, murder Americans on american soil, steal millions of dollars, destroy companies and even the entire economy, and do you know what will happen?
Absolutely nothing.
They believe they are above the law. And heck, most of the legislative branch believes they are above the law. The judicial and executive branches are more than willing to look the other way, so as a result, the NSA gets a free pass to do whatever they want.
Because.... national security... and boogyman terrorists... and something, something mumble mumble. Whatever the fear flavor of the week is. 1984 was an instruction manual.
Re:And nothing will be done. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oligarchies are a funny animal. If you are 99% of the people you do anything like NSA does and you die alone in a prison cell or you're shot point blank. 1% of NSA affiliated members can do any of it and it's "national security".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If you actually give a damn about the concepts of liberty and equality, you should be prepared to give your life for them. Same as any belief you actually hold. Otherwise, you're just posturing.
Re:And nothing will be done. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, given that 'security' is the ubiquitous justification of these sorts of programs, most attempts to 'refresh the tree of liberty' will just show up as talking points next time the NSA wants a budget increase, or feels like arguing that the rules against domestic surveillance are compromising its effectiveness.
Yes, it sounds all Serious and tough-minded to tell the chatterers that if they aren't fighting at the barricades, they are just whiners; but it ignores the fact that resistance can be worse than useless. In the case of 'national security' apparatus, violence that fails to leave them burned to ashes, and their toadies decorating the lamp posts of the capital, simply makes them look more legitimate and necessary. Since that level of force is unlikely to be a DIY project, you will, at very least, need to reach the level of whining where it becomes a group effort, or where alternate means become available.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps then, some form of civil disobedience [wikipedia.org] that cannot be misinterpreted in any way as a terrorist threat?
I confess I have no answers, I'm just impressed enough by your comment to try and throw out a few thoughts. In a way, I think the growing social stigma/approbation is beginning to have some effect- the executive is forced to justify itself, there appears to be more elected officials questioning the NSA and tech companies appear to be less compliant in servicing the secret demands.
Nowhere near enough
Re: (Score:3)
You now know what your courts, political leaders, lawyers, tame press, trusted brands and top academics have fully supported, funded, not wanted to understand or just let happen.
What can you do as a customer?
Reconsider just consuming the brands that fooled generations. Go out and find other, better US brands. From that chat app, email account, operating system, hardware, software, telco, crypto course.
When you buy your next lcd, rethink the brand on the bezel covering that lcd
Re: (Score:2)
They believe they are above the law. And heck, most of the legislative branch believes they are above the law. The judicial and executive branches are more than willing to look the other way, so as a result, the NSA gets a free pass to do whatever they want.
Because.... national security... and boogyman terrorists... and something, something mumble mumble. Whatever the fear flavor of the week is. 1984 was an instruction manual.
But, the NSA has one additional 'Because'.
Because.. They have dirt on... Everyone and anyone who might act against them.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA could admit that they break the law every day of the week, murder Americans on american soil, steal millions of dollars, destroy companies and even the entire economy, and do you know what will happen?
Absolutely nothing.
A bit over the top but most clandestine operations carried out by our government usually wind up the same way. Anybody remember "Iran-Contra" [infoplease.com], "Bay of Pigs" [wikipedia.org] or "Guatemala?" [wikipedia.org] Other than the Watergate conspirators, nobody ever really did hard time for any of those.
They believe they are above the law. And heck, most of the legislative branch believes they are above the law. The judicial and executive branches are more than willing to look the other way, so as a result, the NSA gets a free pass to do whatever they want.
Because.... national security... and boogyman terrorists... and something, something mumble mumble. Whatever the fear flavor of the week is. 1984 was an instruction manual.
The legislative branch has been a puppet of both political parties as long as anybody can remember. We'd like to think that judges are impartial and only interpret the evidence and the laws and administer decisions in an unbiased way. To a large
Re: (Score:2)
Their behavior is however, appalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there are also many people who are just authoritarian assholes at heart, and they support things such as the NSA spying from the bottom of their wretched little hearts.
Pretty much par for the course for human behaviour and another variation of NIMBY [wikipedia.org] all over again. These laws/regulations are all good and necessary -unless they start to affect me, of course.
The Future (Score:3)
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul - Leonard Cohen "The Future"
These are not isolated events anymore. Everything is being turned upside down.
Re: (Score:2)
So true and frightening. From 1992!
Stuff is definitely getting weird.
Frightening (Score:5, Interesting)
These fucking people are out of control and need some serious jail time.
Re:Frightening (Score:5, Insightful)
The law says it's perfectly legal for NSA to destroy evidence that would compromise national security if revealed in a civil court.
So the NSA gets to decide which evidence could impact national security of course, and pretty much all of it impacts national security so there is effectively no oversight. So pretty much the NSA operates as an unchecked branch of the government.
You apologist are many things: cowards, shills, etc. Patriots you are not. You are undermining our democracy (however much we have left).
Re: (Score:2)
pretty much all of it impacts national security
Pretty much all? Clearly, if the NSA is doing something it impacts national security. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Duh. Besides that, it's right there in their name. National Security Agency, see?
Re: (Score:2)
So, the metadata for grandma's call to the pizza store is now a matter of "national security," simply because the NSA collects it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm told that the nsa/fbi/etc has an app for that!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about that.
Re: (Score:3)
NO IT DOES NOT
The law does cover some procedures and methods to allow the court to review the evidence without making it public.
IANAL and even I know that.
So, are you just ignorant or a duplicitous shill?
Re: (Score:2)
I will go further and say that shattering those principles are treason. Think about the amount of global goodwill the USA has lost over the past decade as news of its unjust invasions, NSA spyin
Watch this (Score:2)
Watch THIS. [pbs.org]
It blew my friggen mind. Michael Hayden is an evil motherfucker.
The root cause (Score:2)
If you want to understand how our country came to this, it is quite well summed up in 260 or so pages in a book called "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer.
Download the book here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
This is written from extensive research into right wing authoritarian personality (right wing is not a political aspect here). If you want to know why the entire globe seems to be following this destructive (destructive from a majority point of view) read this. It becomes easy to see why polit
And this is why (Score:2)
/ As does the Alzheimer's foundation
Re: (Score:2)
Pick up that can.
Since when has this been a legal defense? (Score:3)
Tell you what Federal Government... if you consider this a defense against destroying evidence, then certainly you'd be okay with lowly citizens that are supposed to be EQUAL to you before the law to use the same defense when you bring us to trial...
Right? Or are we the only ones that have to follow the rules?
Donate to the EFF! NOW!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF is the best example of an entity that defends *all* amendments. I now financially support them, every month. When NPR comes begging for money I'm happily able to refuse, secure in the knowledge that EFF is far more effective in their use of funds than NPR when it comes to presevring the Constitution.
There are a ton of relatively affluent people here on Slashdot. It certainly wouldn't hurt you to allocate a small amount of money to EFF annually, and we know their results.
Re: (Score:3)
You have some VERY confused ideas (Score:2, Insightful)
"I used to financially support the NRA, under the assumption that they defended the 2nd amendment. A while age I realized that was not actually correct"
Um, no... the NRA is still the only organization that FIGHTS for the 2nd amendment. Gun Owners of America IMHO is a fig leaf for people who want to claim they care about the 2nd while being ineffectual in doing it. I personally wish there was an NRA-equivalent (that had members of the House and Senate quaking in their boots) for EACH of the 10 amendments t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, no... the NRA is still the only organization that FIGHTS for the 2nd amendment.
They don't do a very good job of it. In fact, they seem to do a very good just of 'compromising' away rights. For instance, I believe the NRA said that it doesn't have problems with restricting people with criminal records, or people with mental health issues.
If you take the position that the 2nd amendment means that modern weaponry is fine (Which I do.), then you can't arbitrarily decide that it doesn't protect certain weaponry that you find scary. Yet, many types of guns are banned, and certain people are
Re:You have some VERY confused ideas (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I believe it's a fair reading of the 2nd amendment that the "well regulated militia" can be interpreted to not include folks who can be judged incompetent to own a weapon, though there should be due process on this decision. Even if such a provision did not exist, I would imagine other provisions would justify limited gun regulation. if the govt can take away your children for incompetence, surely they can take away your weapons. I agree with you on the modern weaponry question, however.
Re: (Score:2)
but but (Score:2)
U.S. Marshals Seize Cops’ Spying Records... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a new sneaky approach, less destructive but so far effective: U.S. Marshals Seize Cops’ Spying Records to Keep Them From the ACLU [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Find the backups. (Score:2)
Backups. There's usually a backup somewhere that still contains the data.
Re:So... to summarise: (Score:4, Insightful)
Go destroy some evidence in a case against you where a judge has ordered you to preserve it. Let me know how that works out for you. The NSA will get away with it. You'll be asking Bubba to make sure he uses some lube.
Re: So... to summarise: (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish more people weren't willing to put up with their government breaking the law. We should be up in arms about shit like this because it decays the very foundations of this country.
Re: So... to summarise: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that it is angry average Joe against teams of highly intelligent, highly motivated, professional weasels working for the big two parties. And unfortunately, they have been equipped with knowledge of human psychology, economics, and anthropology.
So much anger... (Score:2)
I find from past experience that people who feel the need to shout to make their point (especially in caps over the internet) invariably have nothing worth listening to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Large-scale change requires a large-scale of people. And I'm sorry to report that people are quite dumb, self-entitled, unorganized and spoiled nowadays.
Just like the US Department of Defense has recognized that future threats will be increasingly from terrorist organizations versus traditional regional threats, our next social revolution will be fought with a majority of the participants showing up just to have a good background for their selfies.
Re: So... to summarise: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fuck aren't you, if you think it's such a good idea? You want the meat, you butcher it your own goddamn self. Whining that something should be done, but isn't, and insinuating that you're not doing it yourself == makes you a useless tool. Grow a fucking pair and stand behind your beliefs or shove it.
Because if one or two people that are fed up act on it and they get brushed off, 20 people act up get sent to jail, 200 get still get sent to jail but get a dismissive blurb in the local paper, 2,000 they get pepper sprayed and leader charged with inciting riot, 20,000,000 get a senator or two to half heartedly admit there might be an issue that might need looking into and never do anything substantive, It takes a critical mass to effect change
Re: (Score:3)
You're a fool for assuming that doing something to stop this, requires violent protests. That would be counterproductive, no matter how many people you have on your side.
Meanwhile, those same 2,000 people, in a single congressional district, can swing the outcome of the vote. Even just the fear of that, will make th
Re: So... to summarise: (Score:5, Informative)
It actually turns out to be very easy to do something about it:
https://supporters.eff.org/don... [eff.org]
Re: So... to summarise: (Score:5, Informative)
Supporting EFF is a good start, I agree, but it's no magic solution. Remember, EFF's lawsuit about the NSA dragnet was completely stopeed in its tracks by the "state secrets" defense for YEARS, until Snowden's leak put the relevant info into the public domain, when it was finally allowed to proceed.
Re: (Score:3)
AC has a point, albeit somewhat crudely worded. You need a trigger to start the critical mass rolling. We might still have racial segregation today if Rosa Parks obediently gave up her seat when ordered to do so [wikipedia.org]. Mahatma Gandhi did not have that critical mass when he started his Salt March [wikipedia.org], the march inspired many other to join him and later turned into civil rebellion.
Of course its easier to say it can't be done, sit back and complain over the internet =)
Re: So... to summarise: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps only if you don't reach critical mass. Shoot more of them until the point is well understood.
Re: (Score:3)
That's... sort of how it works, but not exactly. Depending on the jurisdiction involved, this leads to 'spoilation inference', where the destroyed evidence is considered 'conscience of guilt' and the court will consider the destroyed evidence as strongly against the spoiling party.
Re:So... to summarise: (Score:5, Informative)
They knew that to destroy those records was both illegal and obstruction.
As to fishing expedition, apparently the judge didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The destruction of that data is required by law.*
*only when it conveniently helps the government.
Re:So... to summarise: (Score:5, Interesting)
The destruction of that data is required by law. EFF tried to go on a fishing expedition.
Both the FISA court and Federal court eventually decided that the NSA was both allowed to, and required to, preserve information relevant to the ongoing cases, and the NSA both knew this and also eventually advocated for this position. See: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com].
Court-ordered legal discovery also has force of law and would supercede any legal requirement to destroy information by plaintiffs or defendents.
And the DOJ did not assert the EFF was on a "fishing expedition"; it argued that it misunderstood the scope of discovery, and would not have destroyed the information in question if it did (which seems highly improbable given the circumstances).
Bad DOJ (Score:4, Interesting)
That is an unbelievably stupid argument by the DOJ. It's common sense that when the court orders you to preserve documents, you hold on to any documents which may remotely be affected at all. This is a clear cut case of contempt of court and ought to be prosecuted as such.
The DOJ is setting a fine example for all other law abiding citizens out there. I expect to see more "I misunderstood the scope of discovery" excuses in forthcoming civil and criminal cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it seems to work for President Obama too.
Re: the dog ate my homework (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, he just read about the dog eating his homework in the news the next day.
The dog has eaten the Constitution (Score:3, Interesting)
If that dog only ate your homework the consequence is limited between that dog and you
But in the reality is that the dog, aka, the Government of the United States of America, has eaten the Constitution
The Constitution of the United States of America used to be the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND, used to be , no longer, because the way that motherfucking dog is behaving, it not only ignores the Constitution, it goes directly AGAINST what the United States of America is all about !
We call ourselves a "democracy", w
Re: The dog has eaten the Constitution (Score:2)
As long as you just complain while they take assertive action, they will win.
You're just an example - we have a broad coordination problem. We either need to solve that or get a message to future generations to not adopt this kind of system.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy- You vote on each law
Republic- You for for representatives who vote on laws
Dictatorship - Government by one who dictates (rules with a pen and a phone)
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition of democracy is only of one type known as "direct democracy". There are also semi-direct and representative democracy variants. There is much more nuance than you make it seem.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken by an Anonymous Coward.
Re:The dog has eaten the Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
Spoken by an Anonymous Coward.
There's being brave and then there's being suicidal.
The United States of America had many Anonymous Cowards who agitated for Freedom. They were anonymous - or pseudonomous - because they wanted to be able to keep on saying it instead of saying it once, dying, and having no further voice in the matter. Some had to flee the country entirely.
Of course, we are much more civilized today, and we'd never see anyone have to flee just because they spoke up for freedom and the Constitution now.
Re: (Score:3)
He's talking about Thomas Paine.
Re:the dog ate my homework (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, he just read about the dog eating his homework the next day. Found out with the rest of us
Re: (Score:2)
it seems to work for President Obama too.
The actual excuse he uses is "I didn't know about it until I saw it on the news."
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was some way to change a bad president, or a unresponsible congress, if The People felt that they didn't do their jobs the right way
Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, destruction is not proof of claim (Score:5, Interesting)
Keeping the US safe is a clear and compelling interest that takes priority over a measly civil claim.
Ah, yes, "The ends justify the means". The trouble with that is that the means determine the end. If your means are corrupt, lawless and arbitrary, just what sort of outcome do you expect?
I believe this has been discussed previously: Matthew 7:16, 1 Samuel 24:13, Matthew 12:33, Luke 6:43, James 3:12
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I agree with all of the leaks and believe their foreign spying was immoral.
What about the bandwagon fallacy that many authoritarians spew forth in an effort to justify the spying? "Everyone is doing it, so it's okay!" Well, no, it's not, because everyone has rights, and we shouldn't violate even the rights of foreigners without a damn good reason (i.e. evidence that they're enemies).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If any gov can just say evidence does not exist, that no court can see it, that no paper work can be found - the legal system stops for an entire cadre of gov workers.
How long before more gov agencies, bureaucracies and well connected contractors try the same color of law trick? All they have to do is spin up a "national security" story and at a federal le
Re: (Score:2)
Inter arma enim silent leges?
Sorry but that idea was bullshit back in Ancient Rome and it is bullshit now. If the country cannot follow the rule of law in wartime how can they expect the citizens to respect it?
Re: (Score:2)
The law has procedures and methods to allow the court to review the evidence without making it public.
That is why it will NOT compromise national security.
IANAL and even I know that.
So anyhow, where do they keep digging up ignorant or lying cretins like you from?
I wonder if someone is trying to astroturf us.