Slashdot Log In
Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Jul 25, 2006 08:42 PM
from the hollow-sound-of-justice dept.
from the hollow-sound-of-justice dept.
BalanceOfJudgement writes "A major victory by the federal government was won today when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against AT&T for providing phone records to the federal government. From the article: 'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'" Not to be confused with the EFF case, this case was filed by the ACLU on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who argued that their constitutional rights had been violated by the actions of AT&T and the NSA.
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
RIP America (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi, my name is Pat Riot (Score:5, Funny)
Privacy is for terrorists. Law abiding, God fearing citizens should be proud of people knowing what they're doing. Only wicked people hide their activities.
Would you rather be free or be safe from terror? (end right wing satire)
Parent
Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIP America (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIP America (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIP America (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIP America (Score:5, Insightful)
No, "throwing your vote away" is when you don't vote at all -- which is what the majority of the US population did at the last presidential elections.
Why don't you stop chastigating people who choose to exercise their democratic responsibilities in accordance with what their beliefs and conscience tell them, and instead use your energy to convince everyone who's too lazy to vote at all that it's worth turning out on election day?
The 1992 and 2000 elections proved that running on the third party can actually harm your cause.
You are making the assumption that everyone's cause is aligned with one of the two main parties. If a Green or Libertarian voter does not wish either the Republicans or the Democrats to win, how does it harm her cause to vote for the party she does want to win, thereby raising its profile? And how does it help her cause to vote for a party she does not want to win, thereby giving the false impression that she supports its policies?
Parent
Re:RIP America (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs"
"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking..."
"Wait a minute... There's one guy holding up both puppets!"
GO BACK TO BED, AMERICA. YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL.
Parent
Re:Why don't you... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why don't you... (Score:5, Informative)
Right.... Their arrests were completely unrelated to crossing a police line after losing their court case [bbc.co.uk].
This past presidential election there were actually _4_ presidential candidates.
No, there were at least 74 [wikipedia.org] candidates, of which 6 could have theoretically (due to being on enough state's ballots) won the election. (Oddly, you omitted Ralph Nader - Independent/Reform (spite?) and Peroutka - Constitution).
Michael Badnarik the candidate for the Libertarian party, and David Cobb the candidate for the Green party were both arrested when they showed up for the debate. Some democracy, eh?
They weren't invited to the debate. They lost their court case. They crossed a police line. They were arrested. American democracy is fine, the Libertarian & Green parties, on the other hand....
Parent
Re:RIP America (Score:5, Informative)
This bad is because 1) the President/gov't is *not* suppose to be above the law, 2) any evidence obtained from this ill gotten booty would not be usable in court, this in turn makes convicting the terrorist that much more difficult and 3) the harm done out weighs the benefits.
Wouldn't the right of free assembly(1st amendment [findlaw.com]) and the right against unreasonable searches(4th amendment [findlaw.com]) come into play when tracking calls? It's ok for the gov't to disregard those rights in the pursuit of ______?
The Constitution was written as an attempt to prevent tyranny, by chipping away at the Bill of Rights and increasing the Executive branch's power(back-boor vetos [boston.com]) US citizens continue to lose legal means of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government.
Here is some reading material for you:
Bruce Schenier on NSA & Bush's illegal wiretaps [schneier.com]
Bush blocks internal probe into illegal wiretaps [pitt.edu]
An Imminent Threat (to the Constitution) [washingtonpost.com]
There is more involved than just tracking who you are calling. That's just the cover story to distract you while the power grab is going on.
Parent
enemies of this country (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:enemies of this country (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorists are amongst us, they are in our community, in our schools, our churches, they are our neighbors.
Terrorists could be sitting next to you right now packed full of explosives waiting to blow away your god given freedom.
You make someone scared enough of something and they will let you do anything to help them.
Parent
Re:enemies of this country (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote. Vote wisely. Vote out incumbents.
Parent
Sidestep (Score:5, Insightful)
The word is "sidestep"..not "challenge".
Ole!
Parent
4 words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:4 words (Score:5, Funny)
What if I don't have enough dollars to elect a congressman?
Parent
Re:4 words (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Propaganda levels are approaching Soviet era Moscow.
Re:Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst they head right down the same path.
If you think the EU will somehow be different, think again. All of this is happening in the entire world. Soon the only countries which aren't themselves police states will be the puppets of police states (because they won't have the power to refuse).
This is happening throughout the world because the same people are behind it: the people who run the big multinational corporations and who also conveniently control the mass media. They want fascism because fascism is by definition friendly to big business, and thus to them. They have far more influence, and thus control, over all governments than we ever could. Those governments control all the guns that matter -- their firepower outranks that of the citizens (even the well-armed ones) by many, many thousands to one. And history has shown countless times that those in the military have no reservations whatsoever about turning their guns against the citizenry.
Face it: we've lost. The entire world is descending into darkness and despair, and this time there's no climbing out of it for a really long time (centuries, perhaps even millenia). Police states almost never collapse from within: it almost always takes an outside influence to topple them. That can't happen if the entire world is under the control of police states.
At least the patriots of the American Revolution had a fighting chance of winning, thanks to the technological circumstances of the time. But now, there's no chance at all.
Parent
Re:Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a few years ago I think there was a possibility it could swing either way...
And then the American People elected one of the worst men in history to the office of President. If Bush's blatant horror had been visited only on Americans, the world may have hope; but he and others have succeeded in convincing the rest of the world to follow.
People with power only ever want one thing... more power. And in an age when a single word can kill a million people, there's little anyone can do to fight. That's the fundamental difference between now, and all past revolutions... the power to literally destroy the world never existed in the hands of those being fought.
Men like Ray Kurzweil talk about the 'technological singularity', the point at which technological advancement becomes so accelerated that it breaks all possibility for prediction. But there's another singularity we're heading for: cultural singularity, a point at which it becomes impossible for our society ever to change its direction, even if everyone wanted to.
There's only one way this will end...
In fire.
Parent
Re:Laughable (Score:5, Interesting)
It is. I know a fairly good number of highly technically skilled people - including myself - who are staying away from the USA and are turning down invitations to speak at conferences, coach upper-level management and other opportunities.
My current policy is that if my skills are so valuable that you want the entire board of directors to attend for two full days, then you can fly them somewhere outside USA borders as well. Canada would do, or a nice place in the carribean.
I'm not going to enter the USA for the forseable future, and neither are many of my friends.
Parent
DON'T DO THAT AGAIN! GEEZ!! (Score:5, Funny)
...I was about to start a riot.
This seems a little strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This seems a little strange (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Grrr (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no out clause in the fourth amendment. It doesn't end with "Unless, the government wants to keep it secret."
LK
Invincible (Score:5, Insightful)
I am doing something.
You ask what I'm doing.
You say it's illegal.
If I tell you, it will expose secrets.
I don't expose secrets.
You don't know what I am doing.
You can't tell me what I am doing is wrong, because you don't know what I am doing.
I am doing something. Too bad.
How exactly is it that the government can set up a system that is completely impervious to moral question? Keep in mind, this really is the NSA's wrongdoing, but it's more or less impossible to sue the government. Now, the government is saying you can't sue them either!?
What if the NSA was secretly executing suspected terrorists without warrants, due process, etc? Oh hell, let's say they were hiring a private (non-government) corporation to do that for them. It would obviously be illegal, but how would stopping that be any different? Someone would say "you can't just kill people, it's illegal", and the NSA would say "you can't ask that question, it would expose state secrets". And the NSA would continue to kill "terrorists".
Shouldn't this program be immediately halted while the morality (oh hell, legality) of it is in question?
To expand on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, the question is whether allegiance to our current government ought to supercede our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America which defines our system of civil liberty.
Parent
Re:I don't blame the Bush Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the worst days in human history was the day in 1849 when a U.S. Federal judge declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals.
Prior to that day, corporations were answerable to the government as to their purpose and behavior. On that day, they became free to be as unethical and irresponsible as your average Joe.
Problem is, your Average Joe doesn't have the ruthless efficiency of never sleeping, nor the power to destroy countless natural resources in the pursuit of 'profit.'
One of the worst days in human history...
Parent
Re:Invincible (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress has the authority to investigate essentially anything they damn well please.
Guess what hasn't been happening throughout much of the Bush Administration.
You'd think Congress would be investigating, if for no other reason than to say
"Concerned citizens, we have looked into your complaints and everything is fine"
Parent
Worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't tell me what I am doing is wrong, because you don't know what I am doing.
No, this is not a fishing expedition.
In this case, we know what they are doing and that it's wrong. A credible witness has come forward and told us about wiretapping, which violates the fourth amendment by violating your right to be secure in your home and private papers. What's missing is proof of the extent of the crime. It's not if they were doing something wrong or what that wrong was, GWB has admitted it, it's how much wrong was done.
Shutting down the investigation for "security" is outrageous and disgusting. They might as well tell us, "if we have to get search warrents to violate you, the terrorists will win." There are laws against domestic spying and they are being violated.
Parent
either way (Score:5, Interesting)
More than likely there is an extensive spying program with relatively poor and easily avoidable detection methods and that's the reason it is being so well protected. Only the atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt is helping them "fight" terror, the program itself probaby doesn't do much besides producing false positives. If the details were made public it would almost certainly be cancelled even if it was legal.
What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Quote: "He also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said."
Okay... this lawsuit is fundamentally about secret wiretapping, right? So how can the judge say "you don't KNOW that you were wiretapped, so you can't sue" with a straight face? _NO ONE_ knows whether or not they have been spied on. THAT'S THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!
(2) How can the judge possibly say that "news reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over." Isn't Bush getting in front of a podium and denouncing the liberal media for revealing state secrets enough of an "official confirmation"?
I'm partially bitching about the sorry state of affairs here in the USA, but I'm also asking a serious question: Is this shit for real? Is there anyone, anywhere, who wants to defend it? Seriously, I know there are some hard core conservatives here on slashdot. I'd actually like to see how some of you view this ruling... does ANYONE want to defend it?
Re:What?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me disclaim some things before I make a comment, mostly in the devils advocate sense. I'm not sure how I feel about this decision, but I know how I feel about Bush and his domestic spying programs and I hate them both. That said:
So how can the judge say "you don't KNOW that you were wiretapped, so you can't sue" with a straight face?
Well, because I think that's how the law works. If I punch you in the face and break a bone, your third cousin twice removed doesn't get to sue me for medical expenses related to it. The person suing has to be the person who was wronged (or have legal status to file on their behalf--such as guardians in the case of minors, or people with power of attorney). This is the same thing that happened in the whole "the Pledge is unconstitutional" ruling a year or two ago. The Supreme Court threw the ruling out because the father, suing on behalf of his child, did not have legal custody at the time. Is it a legal cop-out? Well, yes, but the legal system is also a very formal establishmentwith very set rules.
In this case, it's obviously a harder thing to understand. Yeah, it's about a secret spying program--but do these guys who were suing actually have any reason to believe their calls in specific were actually monitored/recorded? I guess they could admit talking to their terrorist friends and that would probably give them the status to sue, but it would also get them into a bit of hot water. Failing that, CAN they even have any such reasonable belief?
Does that mean there's no recourse to this sort of action? No. Anybody charged based in any part with evidence obtained through this program would have the status to sue. Likewise, Congress could step in and put a stop to it, including, if they had the spine, demanding all such evidence gathered to date through the program be destroyed. (Of course that would be "helping the terrorists" so most Congressmen wouldn't do it.)
Does it suck? Well, yeah, it does, but that's the nature of the beast when we're dealing with anything clandestine. Otherwise any wackjob who wants to could claim some massive government conspiracy is being perpetuated, with absolutely no proof, and tie up the courts trying to force them to reveal it.
And no, I'm not saying that's what this is.
Isn't Bush getting in front of a podium and denouncing the liberal media for revealing state secrets enough of an "official confirmation"?
I would think so, but did the plaintiffs actually argue this point during their case?
Honestly, the "you don't have the status to sue" part of the ruling didn't bother me. The whole "OMG NATIONAL SECURITY!!!" thing was what really rubbed me the wrong way. This has to be one of the worst kept secrets in politics today. If any harm would actually be done to national security by exposing it, it's already been done -- and in my opinion, it's greatly overshadowed by the fact that this program is very likely illegal to begin with. Sorry, G-Dub, you don't get to re-write laws at whim from your study--and that includes your bullshit "signing statements."
Parent
I won't defend it nor would any true conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as Rome started out with the first Triumverate (of Julius Caesar, Cassius, and Mark Anthony) and ended up eventually with the depravity of Nero and Caligula, so too we are following down this path if we don't take sufficient corrective action now.
No true conservative could defend these trends. That is, unless that "conservative" upholds Caligula or Nero as a great example of good governance...
Parent
Re:What?! (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. This is not about wiretapping. This is about data mining. The wiretapping is a separate issue. This issue is about raw aggregate data. It's essentially the data on the second page of your phone bill.
Whether or not you feel this is wrong, it is NOT wiretapping.
Parent
Now they'll never know! (Score:4, Funny)
the really baffling thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any competent terrorist has almost certainly been operating under the assumption that this already happens for years. I mean, they're being hunted by the world's biggest military power, and we're supposed to think they don't even take basic precautions?
Congratulations America (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember once hearing the proud words of a US firefighter who was involved in the Ground Zero cleanup, saying something along the lines of "the terrorists will never take away our freedom".
And he was right. It took the Bush Administration to achieve that one.
Sits back and waits to modded down by neo-con fanatics.
Constitutional rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have these people read the US Constitution? There may be a right to privacy, but it is not enumerated nor implied in that document. The closest you can get is the ninth and tenth ammendments, which are the two that are NEVER honored.
The core problem is that privacy is a vague (and very modern) concept. If I give someone a phonebook with your number in it, have I violated your privacy? How much worse is it if it's an unlisted number? Or if I give it to the government instead of to my neighbor? Or if I'm a phone company instead of an individual? Because privacy is such a nebulous property, the answers to these questions are anything but clear. The closest the courts have gotten to a definition (in the absence of anything in the Constitition itself) is the not-quite-so-vague concept of "expectation of privacy". But with the every changing technological landscape, expectations get pretty hard to pin down.
Senator Barbara Boxer regularly spams my inbox with junk. How did she get my address? Why isn't the local Registrar of Voters being sued for giving her my personal information? Why isn't Yahoo being sued for selling my account information to the highest bidder? Why isn't my old landlord being sued for telling my creditors where I moved? What makes that any of that different from what AT&T did?
AT&T didn't hand over any voice tapes of your private conversations. They might have handed over the times a call was place from your number to your mother's number, in aggregate with millions of other such records. To everyone the former is a privacy violation, to to many the latter is not. Simply because the line is very fuzzy and wide.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a right to privacy. Rather I am arguing that you're on very loose ground arguing over a constitutional right to privacy. If you think the situation is going to improve, you're sadly mistaken. I strongly suspect technology will make privacy obsolete.
Re:Constitutional rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
There is no argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the government secrecy aspect.
Ignoring that the NSA is legally bound not to conduct domestic surveillance.
Those are some pretty FUCKING big pills to swallow, but I'll pretend, hypothetically, that I can let those things go. *gulp*.
The government's argument is this:
1. We are not conducting such surveillance, nor have we done anything illegal.
2. The reason we have not done anything illegal is because you cannot demonstrate that AT&T provided records to the government.
3. Forcing the government to provide such evidence might alert the terrorists that this surveillance program, which does NOT exist, is watching them, making us less safe.
4. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.
These statements are not congruent. There's no defensible argument here. One of the government's position is that AT&T did not provide records to the government. If that didn't occur, then there is no potential security risk. The entire government "reponse" is that we aren't doing any surveillance, but proving that may, potentially, alert Terrorists to the surveillance we are doing.
Frankly, I'm depressed we have a Republican Congress, because this kind of outrageous, unconstitutional, illegal, dictatorial, fascist behavior, layered in hypocrisy, deserves impeachment .
We impeached a President because an intern blew him, and he was misleading about it in Congressional Hearings.
Bush has, and continues to, lie about the existing of a ubiquitous domestic surveillance program that is without a doubt illegal, and his justification is, "Because I'm the boss, you all are children, and you can't handle the truth"
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot protect the secrecy of an illegal surveillance program under the grounds that it "doesn't exist". I hope, Mr. Bush, that the Heaven and Hell you believe in are real, so that you may burn in the lowest levels of hell, that reserved for traitors.
I say this as a person who supports the war in Iraq, I say this as a staunch conservative. Rot in Hell, Mr. President.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption? [eff.org]
Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax? [eff.org]
Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear? [eff.org]
But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today [eff.org]. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.
Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'
Did you like that the Communications Decency Act [eff.org]got killed?
Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit [eff.org]?
Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization [eff.org] depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.Terrorists have won another victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Any dictator can reign bombs and bullets, but only the truly brave can dare to defend the rights of the people when borders are threatened, and stand by the conviction of the idea that it is the people that are more important, rather than the government. And, if we perish under such a cause, then liberty is a thing too beautiful for the world to grasp, freedom too nobel for humanity to possess. We deserve to fall under the hand of evil, if we can't stand up for what is right.
"Adversaries" don't need confirmation. Citizens do (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, "adversaries of this country" can safely assume AT&T disclosed large quantities of telephone records. In the unlikely event that they didn't, our adversaries will surely and prudently prefer err on the side of caution.
Citizens of this country, by contrast, have been denied even the semblance of justice, as their own government tramples over their rights.
If that isn't victory for the "adversaries of this country" I don't know what would be.
Hope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those examples are isolated cases of badness in an overall good, or at least perceived as good, country.
Right now, the USA is perceived as a bad country by most of the rest of the world. In fact, the vast majority of europeans laugh out loud when you call other countries "axis of evil" or "rogue nations", because that fits yourself so much.
Right now, there are isolated cases of goodness in an overall evil country. It's not a case of "bouncing back". You've destroyed about 50 years of reputation building in 5 years of Bush. You can't bounce back, you'll have to take the long way around and start from scratch. It'll be decades before the rest of the world trusts you again.
Parent
Bush finished what Bin Laden wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you, my friend, are a fool.
There is no "short-term" to a never ending "war" on an ephemeral notion like terrorism.
Mark my words - when your liberties are gone, they're gone for good.
Parent