EFF Sues the Dept. of Defense Over Surveillance 141
An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched a lawsuit against the US government, demanding the publication of information about FBI cyber surveillance operations. The EFF launched its action after the authorities failed to disclose information requested under the Freedom of Information act. The EFF wants to find out more about two electronic surveillance systems used by the government agency to monitor electronic communications." From the article: "A Justice Department Inspector General report in March said the FBI had spent about $10 million on DCS-3000 to intercept communications over emerging digital technologies used by wireless carriers before next year's federal deadline for them to deploy their own wiretap capabilities. The same report said the FBI spent more than $1.5 million to develop Red Hook, 'a system to collect voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information' before those wiretap capabilities are in place."
If a tree falls in a forest... (Score:2, Interesting)
If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody's there, does it make a sound?
If your voice calls are transcribed by a machine, but nobody submits a query to the database that retrieves your transcript, were you wiretapped?
Re:If a tree falls in a forest... (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, if a machine taps your communications and takes a transcript, even if not "directed by a person" (didn't a person have to direct the general tapping?), weren't you still tapped?
It's kind of like saying that it's ok for the police to come through your house and make a list of what you've got and just to log it, in case someday later they should have a reason to wonder what you had before
If a slashdotter makes a lame reference.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes to both questions.
Everybody who quotes the "if a tree falls" chestnut (at least those who quote it without making a joke) totally misunderstands what Bishop B was trying to say. He wasn't arguing that there is no noise in the forest — that's a silly idea. He was arguing that since events don't occur without an observer, there must be somebody observing all the events that demonstrably occur, but don't have a human observer. In other words, he's arguing that there must be a God.
So the trees do fall, and the FBI does indeed know about your dial-a-porn addiction. Unless you're going to argue that trees don't fall until somebody finds the rotten log, or the FBI doesn't know what it knows until they access their database. And if you're going to make that kind of convoluted rationalization, you need to get out more.
Re:Liberal hysteria!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I will be branded a liberal, since I admitted watching "The Daily Show" last night, but in one of the clips at the end, in the moment of zen segment, Bush described his job, among a million other things, as confronting the problems of the country head on and not leaving them to future administrations/generations to deal with.
Can anyone say he has left office leaving the future with less problems than, about equal, or more? I am not talking about pre-existing problems like the budget or healthcare, or even 9/11 terrorism. But with Iraq, with no real terrorist connections, with our spending billions each years, probably trillions over the lifetime of that campaign, will we be safer? Will the Middle East be more stable? Will our deficit be better off? Is our standing to face other threats secured?
Now, I agree with the decision to invade Afghanistan. But, still today, we have never been shown a clear connection to terrorism against the US and Iraq, nor any good motivations besides perhaps revenge in that Saddam was his father's enemy, (and once a "friend" of the US, under Reagan or earlier I think).
I only hope that in the 2008 elections, we have a return to moderates and realistic people like John McCain or Joe Biden or perhaps, gasp, some votes for Independent around the country in different positions.
Re:If a tree falls in a forest... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. But could you charge anyone for assault? Probably not.
I'm not defending the practice; back when suspects were guaranteed the right of a trial, the evidence gathered in this manner would be challenged and most likely thrown out. (Ironically enough, under a doctrine named after the "fruit of the poisoned tree"...)
Of course, if there's no trial, there's no need for the rules of evidence to come into play.
Avoiding the State Secrets Defense (Score:1, Interesting)
A.) You wait for the Administration to brag about how it is chasing down the "terrists" and let them adequately describe how they are breaking the law.
B.) Find a few people with standing that probably have been damaged by those illegal actions while avoiding the need to produce specific individual records from the illegal activities.
As long as you don't ask the Gov't to produce specific info regarding their illegal activities, they cannot claim State Secrets.
Re:Liberal hysteria!! (Score:4, Interesting)
on the subject of how the country will be left, there's nothing very surprising. bush should be charged with treason for lying to the public to take the country to war. cheney should be charged with fraud, and whoever in cheney's office 'outed' a cia agent should also be tried for treason; clinton should get a box of cigars.
Re:If a slashdotter makes a lame reference.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this discounts the possibility that to 'observe' an event does NOT require a sentient observer. Plants, insects, and other woodland creatures can observe things on their own. Or the tree that fell could observe it's own falling, a.k.a. the Zen answer.