Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed 597

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This discussion has been archived.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.

Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @09:46PM (#15781060)
    One has to ask one's self who the true enemies of this country are.
  • Re:4 words (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @09:52PM (#15781090)
    Know of any large com corporations that aren't going to bend over for the feds?

    That's not a rhetorical question. I'm actually curious.
  • Re:4 words (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ludomancer ( 921940 ) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @09:55PM (#15781107)
    I been thinking just that! The problem here is... what's a cellular service alternative?! Didn't all the major providers hand over their records to the NSA? That really irks me, but as soon as I find one that didn't I'll be moving my service to them.

    Suggestions please!
  • either way (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spykemail ( 983593 ) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @10:01PM (#15781125) Homepage
    I really don't have all of the details so I can't actually say for sure whether this lawsuit would have uncovered information that could have decreased the United States' ability to combat terrorists, however, the truth is I DON'T CARE. There are a lot of things that COULD be done to increase security in the States, but many of them would be worse than the very things they would seek to eliminate. From what I know I would argue that this is probably one of them, though again, I don't know the true details. In a free country you simply can't have allegedly illegal government programs that aren't subject to claims of illegality. There's an argument to be made for suspending such things in times of true emergency, distant conflicts with various terrorist organizations likely to last indefinitely not being one.

    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.
  • by Penguinoflight ( 517245 ) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @10:16PM (#15781197) Journal
    Well on the bright side, this was not a ruling, it was a dismissal of a case. It might set precedent, but I dont think precedent is used for determining if a case is valid for judging. On the other hand, the government was a third party in this dispute, so by denying the ruling based on the government the judge has made a situation where the only just thing to do is to rule in favor of the victims. Too bad justice isn't in the system any more.
  • by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @10:19PM (#15781220)
    More to the point, if I commit any civil offense (ignoring criminal implications for the moment) and get sued, does that mean that the case can't be publicized or proceed until the government says it's OK? Doesn't that give the government utter cart blanche?
  • Why don't you... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Yogler ( 984129 ) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @10:27PM (#15781254) Homepage
    There are no politicians to vote for who are not corrupt.
    ...try running for office yourself?
  • Mod parent up. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 ) <sherwinNO@SPAMamiran.us> on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @10:32PM (#15781265) Homepage Journal
    Mod parent up.

    What kind of moronic, head-stuck-up-his-ass dyed in the wool IDIOT modded parent down?

    Are there genuinely assholes that believe in this security through obscurity? If so, I hope you still defend my right to arms, so that when the day comes, and push comes to shove, I'll be able to go down fighting.

    This ruling is absurd. The invocation of state secrets, an absurd doctrine, in such a mundane case, is absurd. This level of monitoring is absurd, as is SBC (AT&T Reborn! Empire Reborn!) playing lapdog to an administration that was supposed to be about small government. [npr.org]

    Thankfully, I know that I'm wealthy enough, and smart enough, and connected enough, that when people like me fail, and our freedoms are wiped out, and the mass arrests start, I'll be able to get out. My parents fled horrifying regimes elsewhere in the world; I never imagined I might have to do it here, as well. It doesn't hurt that I have citizenship in 3 countries. For the rest of you stupid fucks that let this happen, rot in hell.
  • Re:Why don't you... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @10:42PM (#15781311)
    ...try running for office yourself?

    There is a truly profound threat to democracy when you combine Diebold and friends voting machines with corrupt politicians and their friends in the mass media. Because at that point, even if you're a good candidate, you'll be discredited in the news (don't throw your vote away for a third party!), harassed (try flying on a plane, Mr Terrorist!), and finally cheated at the polling station.

    However, it's absolutely not the time to give up on our ideals of liberal democracy.

    Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee. - Immanuel Kant
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @11:08PM (#15781406)
    of people to be put up against the wall and shot for treason when the revolution begins!
  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @11:19PM (#15781444)
    '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'

    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.
  • by theendlessnow ( 516149 ) * on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @11:30PM (#15781483)
    Have you ever lived in Venezuela? They tap everything you do and even have tha capability of installing very intrusive spyware.... even down to key loggers. I have friends who have had mysterious files show up on their computers that were part of machines they previously owned... pretty scary stuff.

    From what I can tell, the goal of intelligence gathering in America has not been used to spy on non-terrorists.... but who knows.... maybe all of America is as evil as most /.ers seemed to think. But I seriously doubt it.

  • Time of war... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @01:47AM (#15781966)
    That brings up the question... Will Bush be declared a war criminal when this all shakes out. I don't think that it takes a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that he is. The other question will be whether the "I was just following orders" will hold more water when US war criminals are being tried any better than when the war criminals were German.
  • by PaulBu ( 473180 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @03:15AM (#15782198) Homepage
    ... I've just had a similar discussion with my frieds (greenish-dems, libertarianish-reps...) a couple of days ago. My solution was for the US to adopt a kind of ZERO-party policy (not one-party, Soviet-style -- where I am originally from -- nor "multi-party", "multi-" meaning, for all practical purposes, "two") -- more along the lines of, it would be illegal to be elected (at whatever level, but especially the highest one) on any party's platform, only on his/her own virtues/accomplishments/whatever... ;-)

    My friends liked the idea, but I am not sure if outright banning political parties would be acceptable for "The People"... OTOH, how different are the two major parties from the organized crime? ;-)

    Paul B.
  • by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @03:17AM (#15782204) Journal
    Well, while the absolute majority of people have done nothing wrong, most do have 'something to hide'.


    Actually, there are more vile lawbreakers than you can imagine. Did you know there are people flaunting laws against receiving hummers in Alabama? I shit you not, man. Lawbreakers, the lot of them! Maybe with more surveillance in place, people will shape up and act normal. Shame and public humiliation is society's greatest weapon against deviancy, much less crime!

    [end parody]

    As the old Soviet Era saying goes: "There's a line in the book for everyone."

    Back in the days, the Salem witch hunts were used primarily as a weapon to steal another's land or do away with someone you didn't like (or to put down disobedient women). The war on terror is shaping up to be much the same thing, with secret imprisonment and denial of airline flight priviledges being the new fire & stake.
  • Re:Laughable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @03:59AM (#15782290) Homepage Journal
    Not only that, but the rest of the world is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

    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.

  • Re:RIP America (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rm999 ( 775449 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @04:15AM (#15782332)
    "Don't vote for anyone in the Democratic or Republican party."

    I hate to say this, because it is so damn obvious but so unpopular in the USA; I'll say it anyway: what you propose is throwing your vote away.

    If you have an "intelligent" retort like I am what is wrong with democracy or I am giving in to the two parties, than you are even more deluded that the average voter. The 1992 and 2000 elections proved that running on the third party can actually harm your cause. Can you please remind me how our version of democracy is so great?
  • Re:RIP America (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dfjghsk ( 850954 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @05:27AM (#15782518)
    This may seem like a radical idea to you, but perhaps people vote for Rupublicans or Democrats because they are the most toward the center in American politics, and most people find they agree with them more than many third party candidates. Who would you suggest I vote for?

    Libertarian party -- the largest 3rd party currently?
    Wants to legalize prostitution, end restrictions on illegal drugs (including cocaine, heroin, etc), and is for same-sex marriage. The prostitution thing will prevent (the majority) of one-half of the population from voting for them.. and most parents would never vote for relaxing restrictions on meth, cocaine, etc. Not to mention the religious vote (remember you do live in a country where 97% of the population associates with one of the major religions)... And whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage is, you have to agree that right now at least, the majority is not for it. Without women or parents, I don't think they are going to be winning any national elections soon (at least not for president).

    Green party?
    The war on drugs issue again... Cocaine, meth, heroin... what person would vote for relaxing the laws on those? Not most people. Same-sex marriage again... They do have some big ideas though.. lets see how many people are for: Abolishing the U.S. senate; getting rid of all U.S. intelligence agencies: NSA, CIA, etc; and abolishing the death penalty (we tried that already.. didn't work so well).. Not to mention their plans to destroy the U.S. economy, and their other ridiculous plans (even if you agree with these, you have to admit that their opponents will label these this way in a race):

    Guaranteed jobs
    12.50 min wage
    30 hour work week paid as 40 hours (ie: give everyone an extra 125/min per week)
    Life long public education -- there goes Americas private colleges: Harvard, Yale, etc.
    Shut down all nuclear plants
    Break up corporate agribusiness -- there goes several billion-dollar businesses
    Every 20 years a company's charter must be reviewed to see if the government agrees with it -- no abuse could happen there
    Break up every company with more than 10% market share
    Every worker should be able to elect their managers -- I always wanted to slack off at work.. this is sure to help the American economy
    Break up the 500 largest businesses in America
    6 weeks vacation time for everyone + the 10 federal holidays
    1 year paid educational leave every 7 years -- we'll just fire everyone every 6 years.. how does that sound?
    1 year parental leave for each child
    End all free trade treaties, and withdrawl from WTO

    Military:
    Cut spending by 75%, and eventually by 99%
    withdraw all international forces and close all bases outside the U.S.
    disarm all chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons
    get rid of all offensive forces -- because apparently we can defend ourselves with just the national guard, and the coast guard
    Disband NATO

    Are you fucking serious? There is a reason virtually no one votes for these people...

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...