U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T 463
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that the US government has 'filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.' More from the article: " In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker." You may recall a few weeks ago when the DOJ asked the judge to dismiss the case. They've now taken the next step required to quash this legal action.
Lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
When you can't sue anyone and everyone who has done or is doing anything you don't like, the terrorists have won.
Duuuuh! (Score:5, Insightful)
In a free country, the judges would give the government the proverbial finger and go ahead with the case. Let's see how it turns up in the US.
Ya, fair (Score:5, Insightful)
If I interpre this right...they want the case dismissed because it will discose state secrets? So it's okay to violate civil liberties and then get away with it because to defend it would hinder state security? Well what about my security? Hell what about my RIGHTS? Next to make a phone call you'll have to requisition phone time giving information like: number you're calling, receiving party, topic conversation.
If the case is dismissed or otherwise rolled under (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are not sure how to find out some of that information, go to eff.org
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. If there were good and legitimate reasons, they would have simply obtained warrants.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay.
Oh and yes, here's a hint: a good government is so rare you haven't seen one in your lifetime anywhere in the world.
Time to make these voting issues (Score:4, Insightful)
If everyone is silent, one day it will be too late. Speak up in unison to keep rights you have fought for over the past 200+ years. You know what they say - use em or lose em!
Good Luck!
That's not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course! Good Lord, man, no one I know has any problem with going after terrorists.
The problem here isn't that the system can be used to nail the bad guys. The problem is that there is absolutely no oversight, and it violates the law. Worse, any attempts to apply oversight have been shut down. If the system isn't being abused, then what the hell is all that about?
Our system of government is predicated on the notion that power inevitably corrupts. This system involves a lot of people, and the idea that absolutely all of them are uncorruptable is absurd.
On this very site as we type, it's reported that the U.S. Government is in negotiations to obtain the same sort of private information from European countries. Quite likely, that sharing will go both ways. Furthermore, media companies are closer than you'd like to getting access to that data, too, in order to "fight piracy". Other companies can't be far behind. Are we to believe that everyone who will eventually have access to our private communications without oversight will be on the up-and-up?
It is the potential for abuse that is the problem. And the fact that this administration has actively resisted any attempt to apply checks and balances in order to prevent abuse is extremely troubling.
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you had any doubts before writing this?
Quite frankly, with the way the constitution is being used as toilet paper, and the imperialistic ways the US is behaving with abroad, I really think the United States is quite comparable to 1933 Gernamy. This has been going on for a very long time, since the end of WW2 in fact, but I think it's now that we're seeing America turn into a full-blown dictatorship. The signs are everywhere, but people don't react... like in 1933 Germany.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, I take this approach.
Assertion: The government is not the bad guys
Conclusion: It is ok to violate our rights if it's for a good cause.
I would think that the above conclusion seems nonsensical. If we accept that the current administration's plans don't include Big Brother-like control over the American public (a proposal that to some, might seem unrealistic, but I am willing to accept it for the sake of argument), that still leaves the question of whether it is RIGHT to be carrying out these surveillance programs.
The ends almost NEVER justify the means; a superior stating of this adage is the following:
"It is never a question of whether the ends justify the means; the means make the end."
In this case, the means being used are possible encroachments on the civil rights of American citizens. Acceptance of that kind of program can only have one end: surveillance of American citizens themselves.
That is not a power I want my government to have, regardless of how "safe" it might make the country. I am not willing to give up my fundamental rights for the ethereal promise of safety.
The US government is and always was, accountable to the American people. The system of checks and balances was put in place so that the no single branch of government could have enough power to destroy the rights of American citizens; the belief was that if one branch acted improperly, at least one of the others could kick them back in line.
What President Bush is attempting to do is tantamount to suppression of the system of checks and balances put into place specifically to protect us from government abuse.
And I leave you with one final question:
If what Bush has approved is so upstanding and legal, why should he fear a legal challenge? I, for one, would like another branch of government besides President Bush to tell me that my freedoms are not being violated, not because I think President Bush is lying, but because that's what the other branches are there for in the first place. And a healthy dose of suspicion of the government is very necessary to a free democracy; that is the only way a society remains free.
Fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if this were really the most effective way of rooting out terrorist actions, the fact that they seem to feel they have to shield themselves from judicial inquiry breaks the accountability of such a system. Are judges and juries too dangerous for our security network now? Are constitutional protections now too restrictive for our intellgence needs?
Do we really need an unnacountable set of parasites feeding on our basic rights in order to protect us from an invisible set of enemies now? If so, does the debate about if we need these things need to be outside public consideration?
Re:Lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:4, Insightful)
No we don't, that's my point: when you make tradeoffs, you open the door to tyranny. Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs. Once that's done, they can use the special rules to enact some more special rules, etc..., until the country is a dictatorship.
Re:Ya, fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully this will be laughed out of court like so many others.
Just highlights the fact that the fight for freedom never ends. the CIA would act like the KGB if they could. Same with any other government entity.
The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other t
Re:Ya, fair (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess, is that like everything else, cost cutting is preventing accurate polling. It costs money to poll. I'm sure that telephone polls are the cheapest. Maybe they can just make a magic 8 ball with poll numbers in it.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:2, Insightful)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re:What about the other two? (Score:1, Insightful)
In the time between the beginning of these illegal surveillance program sand the beginning of the court cases about this illegal surveillance program (i.e. now), two supreme court justices have died or retired and been replaced. By the time a court case evades the "state secrets" block, gets into the court system, concludes, gets into the appelate system, concludes there, and finally reaches the supreme court, how many more justices do you think will have been replaced by the time that happens?
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
What the fuck is Republicanism? Republican is a political party, and I can think of a lot of things that are better than the Neocon dream, a representative democracy with a weak executive branch being one of them.
This country would be a whole lot better if our electorate were informed.
Checks and Balances (Score:2, Insightful)
This motion to dismiss the case goes against the very idea of having checks and balances, and if anything the motion itself is unconstitutional. I hope we (the American public) do not allow for this to occur. I hope this issue continues to gain media coverage, because it has the makings to be a very hot political issue. Something needs to be done to make sure this case gets heard.
One idea i have is to simply boycott of AT&T, Verizon, and Bellsouth. Corporations need to understand that they cannot sell out their customers, either to nasty spammers of the US government, without serious repercussions. Someone needs to picks up this idea and runs with it, because it will send the message home. Convince people to switch to other telco companies that did not participate in this such as Quest, or better get make the move to encrypted VOIP.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding? They can of course go abroad and use any illegal method they like to hunt for, trap, and kill Al Qaeda operatives and supporters. But I'll be damned if they can do it in America, to Americans! If someone is suspected of having ties to foreign terrorist organizations, then get a warrant if these enemies are within the U.S. borders. If not, then send a sniper. Don't give me this spoonfed bs that the administration spouts off about. Maybe you'd like to live under King Bush, but I for one am appalled that this issue is not causing people to pass out from sheer anger.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get wrath it's not for questioning the mindthink...I'm not even sure what that is. You might get flack for taking a gutless coward's stance toward civil liberties, which don't seem very important to people sticking up for an over-reaching administration empowered by a spineless Congress.
The bottom line this is useless for tracking down terrorists. All it takes is for one of the cutouts to be a coffee shop or other public place and the pattern goes out the window. Likewise if one of the cutouts uses Nike Net and walks the message to another party. Pretty basic trade craft. We're not the only country monitoring telecom.
What it is good for is keeping tabs on who those pesky newspaper reporters are talking to, and for outlining your political opponents support network, and people donating money. Saves the government thugs a lot of running around when they know right who to intimidate. And you can make customer lists of businesses critical of your administration and send the feds out to talk to all them and watch their business dry up overnight. It's really good for those kinds of things, not very useful for tracking terrorists.
Besides, if this is such a good thing, then brief Congress and have the oversight legalized. Most times you do that BEFORE spending billions of dollars monitoring innocent Americans and then get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
It's not paranoid to suggest the current administration and their supporters are the biggest threat to America to come along in the last 150 years. Terrorists can knock down a building or blow up a chemical plant, but Bush is undermining the foundation of our country.
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The is the largest government abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Do Not Care (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
You're delusional if you think the Democratic National Congress has any interest in 'the people.' They serve the same master as the Republicans - power.
And by the way, I didn't say I see it as a game. I said the politicians are playing a game. I also strongly implied (and am now directly stating) that you are a willing pawn.
So far as suspecting I live in a fantasy world - how would you know anything about me? You've ignored the things about me I've told you directly. Do you think your power of assumption is that strong?
Parent is WRONG!! Mod him down! (Score:5, Insightful)
See Amendment X:It is The People that have unenumerated Rights.
See Amendment IX:
How to fight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Today.
Re:Won't Matter if They Do Dismiss It (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I've been a little behind on current events, so thanks for the info.
Yes people, it looks like we have another Iraq war on our hands. I'm very much in the minority here with my beliefs, but I'm 99.9% confident that both of these wars are economic ones because Iraq wanted to trade oil in Euros and not US dollars, Iran wants to do the same now (see http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html [energybulletin.net]), and Venezuela might be next.
The American economy is bullshit. Its based on "the new math". Its all about counterfeit money (not gold backed since 1972), planned inflation, manipulation of credit markets, especially housing. And I just don't know how many wars we can rage to keep our bullshit economic voodoo working.
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they may wish for the government to act on some biblical principles, including not killing and not stealing, and they may want greater national security, but your claims are ridiculous.
What you are saying is very similar to "liberals hate America" except that that is true in some, but not most, cases.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hi. Please see my comments in response to someone who brought up Smith v. Maryland in a different thread. [slashdot.org] In short Smith v. Maryland applied in 1979 but I do not think it applies in 2006, becuase the Smith v. Maryland suit is founded on the subjective question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy"; however, privacy laws (and laws concerning exactly when the government must ask for a warrant before obtaining certain information) have changed significantly since 1979, meaning that what may be considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in 1979 is different from what may be considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in 2006. Thanks for the link though.
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberalism is the idea of individual liberty. Modern American liberalism is not the same thing. It is a left wing ideology that supports less social regulation and more economic regulation.
Liberalism in the true sense is the same as libertarianism and is generally considered more right wing, but is really neither.
Conservatism supports greater social regulation and less economic regulation. When they "decry" liberalism they are referring to the modern American ideology of that name.
The Republican party is not only of the extremely rich. In fact, the extremely rich are probably split evenly between the two main parties.
Neither are against individualism entirely. Conservatives believe one should take care of oneself financially, but should follow certain social restrictions. Liberals believe that one should receive help from the government, or be entirely taken care of, but shouldn't have many social restrictions. True liberals, libertarians, believe in less restriction in both areas.
Fox News may be a little biased, but it is a close to centrist as any news agency. It is generally considered conservative because it sometimes does not show complete and utter opposition to the president.
Just because you disagree with someone does not make them evil.
Re:Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Imgaine the scandal if there were only two ketchups? Americans would riot if there were only two ketchups.
Two parties limits the debate to adversarial themes. How do we screw our opponents? (better for country is *so* not a part of the debate.)
Good luck to the Dems. (I guess.) I know they will be just corrupt in 8 years.
-b
MOD PARENT THE FUCK UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Laughing at people who compare things to Hitler is ignoring a very large question that you (and in this case I am referring to the Grandparent and those of his mindset) should (if you weren't so educated fucking stupid) be asking yourself/yourselves: Why is this person so upset?
If we can't cite Hitler, we can't learn from our mistakes. If we can't learn from our mistakes, there's no point in making mistakes. If there's no point in making mistakes, then we should live in constant fear of making a mistake. If we should live in constant fear of making a mistake, we should all wipe ourselves out, because mistakes are inevitable, whether they be supporting facists or making a spelling error on Slashdot.
I am sick and tired. I can TASTE the contempt I have for people like you in my TEETH. "I'm content to be stupid, I enjoy being a parrot, and I can be happy with making little sacrifices - I'm not a bad person. Why can't everyone else be just like me?"
I... there's just so much contempt within me that I find it almost impossible to coherantly express how I feel. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Stalin was able to remain in power. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Hitler was able to commit crimes against humanity. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Bush and the fascists in office can feel free to trample all over every basic human dignity and liberty alike, because you will accept, and even defend, this practice. Not because you actually relate to it - though it gives you a goofy rise, much like how civilized people get a goofy rise out of watching Sonny Chiba movies - but because you are a crippled creature, willing to surpress your basic, ingrained notion of Right, and Wrong, and Fair. Whether through phony intellectualization or simple contempt for whoever's hurt your feelings (which you allow to spread over to the rest of humanity because epic destruction is so awesome), you become a creature of contempt. And even if you were touched by these idiotic policies which your contemptable straw man voodoo rhetoric supports - you know, say your brother got shot to death in Iraq, your father was imprisoned for talking with an old college bud of his and joking about killing the President, and your mother was stalked and raped after trying to rally people in support of your father - you would still sooner claim it the fault of liberalism, misunderstanding, dirty Islamic towelheads who have no right to anything, violent videogames, or God's Will - rather than simply admit that you are wrong, that you have been wrong, that your desire for a cheap rise, a moment of feeling Intellectually Gifted, and/or your simple crass thoughtlessness - whatever it is - is to blame.
The problem isn't that people feel, or think, that Bush is like an American Hitler. The problem is inside you, and inside anybody who would laugh off a comparision without actually giving it some thought, just because they read on Somethingawful/Fark/The "New" MAD Magazine/your satire source of choice that it's apparently "ridiculous" to say such things. Because "OOOOH HITLER, LOL! OMG, WTF, BBQ??? get it??? (insert heavy handed dose of "we're saying this is funny, in an unfunny way, because we think we actually ARE funny in some way, and therefore right - irony" here)", or something.
I have yet to actually read anywhere a coherant and sober reason for why it's a fallacy to compare things to Hitler or the Nazis. Maybe it's because Moderate folk (who can be just as emotionally overwraught as diehard Liberal or Conservative - leaning folk) can't stand t
Re:Time to make these voting issues (Score:3, Insightful)
For all of you on the fence about Bush's committment to defeating those terorists:
What happened to all those terror alerts once the 2004 election was over?
Re:What about the other two? (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely the government can figure out a better way to protect national security than having the lawsuit dropped (helping to settle the case out of court, for example). Having the government step in to kill a court case is a hell of a lot more suspicious than information that would be revealed in court. Really though, I would rather have secrets that hurt "national security" revealed in court than have the executive branch killing cases. What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its mistakes and corruption?
Re:Won't Matter if They Do Dismiss It (Score:2, Insightful)
According to reputable sources, the only way to assure destruction of iran's plethora of fortified bunkers is the use of nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind they are doing a "conventional explosive simmulation" of a nuclear blast in nevada in the next couple months.
If half our major cities aren't reduced to a cinder from that unpleasent probability, we are already stretching our forces thin with iraq, likely our armies, no matter how advanced and well equipped, will crumble under this added strain.
for all we know our sovreignty could end up in the hands of zimbabwe XD
Re:Duuuuh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:1, Insightful)
communism is authoritarianism. How else does central planning work?
Re:Duuuuh! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an assumption, and it's not one I think is valid. If the government has the ability to determine who anyone called, you can be sure they're eventually going to use that information for reasons other than the purpose they originally gave for collecting that information. If a reported cites an anonymous source when reporting on a government scandal? Let's see who contacted that reporter and see if we can determine who could have leaked that information. Want to have a confidential phone conversation with your lawyer? Better not say anything that could be useful if used against you by a government official that may be listening in.
Just don't let Hillary have the list she will probably want to check and see if I have called the local Gun Store.
If you make this power available to this administration, future administrations (who could potentially be the administration of Hillary Clinton) will cite this as a reason they should also have this power.
Godwin's Law (Score:5, Insightful)
The point with Godwin's Law is that the mention of Hitler/Nazis is very often too emotionalizing to continue the discussion in a constructive way, thus it diminishes the probability of resolving the debate in a good way.
The reason for this is that just by mentioning words such as "Hitler" or "Nazi" you are stirring up images and irrational thoughts that everyone of us is confronted with when learning about that part of history. We connect these words with visions of extreme atrocities against other humans, but also with simple anti-nazi propaganda that we have been fed with since WWII.
A very simple example to reflect this: if I were to say "Hitler did many good things." the first thought that will go through most people's minds would be that I am a nazi with all the characteristics associated with one (racist, anti-semitic, authoritarian etc.). Thing is, that I'd consider myself as quite the opposite of a nazi, yet I would stand by that sentence above because it is true (as true as "Hitler was not a good man."). Yet due to the reasons mentioned above most people will react irrationally to my statement and any possibility for rational discussion will be buried.
This is why mentioning Hitler as a comparison to augment a rational debate will only work with certain (educated) people, but usually not if your peers are your average Joe Doe - yes, even here on Slashdot, though at least here fortunately the demographics seem to be scewed a bit towards the 'rational debaters'. Apparently the moderation system improves the SNR as well ;)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Hitler was just a guy. He was no more 'evil' than most people to begin with, but through cunning and manipulation he managed to gain unfettered power to do what he wanted. Over time, that power changed him, and his baser side emerged.
People who believe Hitler was a monster and started evil completely and utterly miss the actual point - he was a man like so many others, but who became so thoroughly corrupted by power that any act was reasonable to him. Anyone can become like that given the right circumstances, and that's why we have checks and balances in our world. You or I could do anything he did if we were put through a set of circumstances particular to us.
Invoke irrelevant political correctness if you like, but remember that Hitler started as a simple man, like anyone you see around you, like you or I.
Re:What about the other two? (Score:2, Insightful)