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: (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
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point. That is language I will use in more of my discussions on this topic - thanks!
Re:If a tree falls in a forest... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, but that's not the real issue. The real issue is that if a woman speaks in the forest and her husband is not there to hear her he's still to blame for not doing what she told him.
KFG
Allow me to correct that for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if someone taps your phone, your phone has been tapped.
The question you are asking should be "if no one requests that tap be used, have your Rights been violated".
Once that tap has been used, and data collected, whether any person sees that data is irrelevant. The tap has been used, the information has been collected. The tree has fallen, the sound has been heard.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The short answer to GPP is that under SCP paradigm, a computer wiretapping you becomes identical to a human wiretapping you the moment such wiretap begins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, sorry the cat link crapped out. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a machine have Buddha-nature or not?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is no legal wiretaps of non-guilty American citizens.
Only a terrorist supporter would be worried, right?
If an asshat falls down the well... (Score:2)
The mantra in the authoritarian/dictatorial sewers of our current "Administration" is "Data=Power".
In the old days of the Hoover FBI, the buttoned-down martinets who worked for that cross-dressing queen used to confront a citizen with a big, fat file and say "Don't you want to help your Government?" and the poor schlub would
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, that tree was on my property and you owe me recompense for cutting it down, whether you used a remote controlled robot or not.
All the document says is "unreasonable searches and seizures," it does not specify that, if the searching is done by non-humans, it doesn't count. Considering the nature of the document in general and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in particular, the federal government does not get to flirt with
Re: (Score:2)
What constitutes an unreasonable search changes with both time and technology. No constitutional change is necessary -- the erosion of the 4th amendment will occur gradually as a reasonable person's expectation of privacy erodes. The police will never be able to go into your hom
1.5b ?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Donate to the EFF (Score:5, Informative)
Website [eff.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the EFF good? Maybe.
Is it worth throwing my money at them to throw away on lawsuits that they lose? No.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not about a single lawsuit but about how we wil
Re: (Score:2)
Industry doesn't care about the EFF because as long as they keep churning out "oooh shiney" for the general public (the above idiots who simply don't care), the general public will continue to bend over and take it.
The government doesn't give a crap about the EFF - the legislators
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather spend mine on things that will have actual benefits for people instead of chasing hopeless ideals.
I'd rather spend my money on things that have even a small chance of making the world a better place, rather than incorrectly equating "small chance" with "no chance" and being a consumer sheep.
---
DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm about as far from a consumer sheep as you can get. No iPod, no other mp3 player, no TV, no trendy overpriced clothes, no sports car, no "as seen on TV" gadgets, etc. Hell, my PC is 5 years old, and probably won't be replaced for another year or two. None of this is because I can't afford it - I just don't have
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, if you want to throw your money at the EFF, good for you. Just don't take a "high and mighty" attitude when people disgree that its the best use of their money.
Nobody's being "high and mighty", just trying to convince you of their point of view. Glad to hear you're not a consumer sheep.
Even if DRM doesn't affect you or me directly now many people believe, myself included, that it will have major political implications for the future when we live most of our lives virtually, shaping society
Re: (Score:2)
I'm convinced the world is already so far down the toilet that it can't be saved, and therefore it wouldn't be right to have any children. Which is why I'd rather spend my money and time doing things that help in the "here and now" instead of "in the future" which might or might not exist (especially with the current bunch of monkeys running governments with nuclear weapons around the world)
Different outlooks on life, really.
DOD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you guys so eager to discredit the US government that you cannot read?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the first thing I noticed... I saw the headline and figured that somehow the EFF was going after GPL stuff in missiles or something.
FBI is DOJ not DOD (Score:4, Informative)
The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense. The linked article gets this right. As far as I can tell, there's no connection with the DOD to this story at all, other than both being executive branch departments.
The summary even refers to the DOJ (a "Justice Department Inspector General") - Zonk apparently read the article, so why the incorrect headline?
Re:FBI is DOJ not DOD (Score:4, Funny)
Is that some kind of sick joke?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, that's a very interesting question. Which draws more hatred: the DOD, the DOJ, or the FBI?
I think "EFF Sues the FBI Over Surveillance" would have worked just as well to stir up comments, while having the added advantage of being accurate.
In fact, with the space saved by using the actual facts, you could change the headline to "EFF Sues the FBI Over Net Surveillance" which is both accurate and guaranteed to generate comments.
But I still wonder - which would generate the most flames, the DOD,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't know about the "black helicopters" then?
Re: (Score:2)
According to this article [newstandardnews.net] about it, the head of George Washington U's National Security Archive said
Re:FBI is DOJ not DOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time, trying to keep the government from expanding, and maintaining privacy were right-wing issues.
Re: (Score:1)
What he means is that in virtually every case, any action by the current government is twisted into a criticism of the current administration.
That kind of bias is no accident. Worse is the rabid insistence by people such as yourself that it doesn't exist. Sometimes it's comical how hard you people try.
Re: (Score:2)
What does one have to do with the other? Government managed health care is all about efficiency. America pays a lot more for health care than countries where it is government subsidised. Not only that, many people can't get the care they need, leading to a poor state of health as well as fi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's not the case. Most countries with public health care have anonymous STD clinics, where you do not need to give a name, and you do not get billed. The government still pays. It makes sense, because STDs left untreated actually increase costs for society.
Also, even if you go to a regular doctor, the government still doesn't know what you got treated for.
With a privcate system, you have to
"facts don't matter" says coward (Score:1)
what's the real issue here? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How effective can this be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is there any integrity left in the government at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, there was that one rogue judge in Michigan...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/08/17/AR2006081700650.html [washingtonpost.com]
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing.
Integrity's there, it's just few, far between and often gets tucked away in janitor's closets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sept. 7th of what year?
Re:How effective can this be? (Score:5, Insightful)
It just so happens that the Supreme Court at the moment is as closely divided as the rest of the country. The last presidential election was 51-48, and even the heavily lopsided Senate is 55-45 (technically 55-44-1). The Supreme Court has four reliably conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito), four reliably liberal ones (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) and one swing (Kennedy).
That last is generally counted among the conservatives, havign been appointed by Reagan, but he has voted to curtail the President on various issues, e.g. Hamdan (the one that forced Bush to change his plan on tribunals for the Guantanamo inmates).
So the answer to your question is that yes, there is a vague chance of the lawsuit being effective, though it's a close call, and it's probably up to one guy.
(Though just to get political for a second, the most reliable liberal is 86 year old Justice Stevens. If he retires or dies before January, a Republican Senate will probably replace him with a young conservative, and that would make the court 5-3-1 for the next several decades. Should the Democrats win the Senate in November, and he retires/dies in the next two years, the President will send over conservative candidates until he either sends over a moderate the Democrats can't oppose without looking stupid, or they crack under the pressure of having an empty seat for too long. The upshot is that my "yes" above may be temporary.)
Re: (Score:1)
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 regardi
Re:Separation of powers (Score:2)
In most despotic nations this would be the case, but the founding fathers of the United States had in mind all too well of what happens when the government owns all three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) and puts them to use (like the Egnlish crown).
So they went about creating a system in which each of the three groups would "check and ballance" each other o
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the people who are appointed to federal judgeships are typically political wonks, a sort of political geek, who have strong views on government, the rule of law, etc. They may be in favor of a strong executive, or they may literally view themselves on th
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that the courts ability to toss someone in jail for YEARS for "contempt" which is a rather blanket term that gets used for anything from being late to court to sleeping in court to just having a tone of voice the judge doesn't like, gives them a power that no other bran
Can you say.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is like trying to dig up a small tree or a bush [pun intended] -- you think there isn't much to dig up, but as you excavate you keep finding more and more roots entwined under the ground.
So to recap: we have the telco industry handing over *all* our phone call logs to the NSA, and the FBI is involved in a wireless LAN snooping program. You have to wonder what the hell we're going to find out next about the US government intelligence / law enforcement community.
"Come on, man -- I mean, *look* at this shit! It isn't a question of whether or not you're paranoid; it's a question of whether or not you're paranoid ENOUGH." -- from the movie _Strange_Days_
Re: (Score:2)
Two things about this movie - Juliette Lewis topless, and the soundrack kicks ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't want the FBI monitoring your wifi networks? Don't use wifi, run cables (not foolproof by any means, but much harder to intercept than wifi).
They may not be options you like, but it IS a choice. Make yours and accept the consequences.
Go vote any idiots you don't like out of office, and put in idiots you DO like. We do have an election in a month - use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, with enough shielding of the premises, I guess you could get away with running wifi.
Information (Score:2)
Seriously we some famous cases that we all memorize in class where the little guy wins. But just as we shake our heads at Microsoft throwing its weight around, is there really much we (joe citizen) can do about Govt Policies?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it's the EFF suing, the chances of winning are 0.00% And in the process of losing, they'll permanently establish the government's ability to squash another civil right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying and "consciousness-raising" doesn't mean squat, when the battleground is Federal Court. And every time the EFF loses in Federal Court, the Government has a new legal precedent AGAINST the rights the EFF was trying to protect. With friends like the EFF, who needs enemies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or at least, I hope so....
Re: (Score:2)
But once they are in office they are just one voice and without money backing them what chance do they stand? You have to have clout in Washington or in local administrations, that is why the Dem/Rep parties are so promanant, they can squish any independent we vote in. Money and Power talk very very loud.
If only they would just use a proxy / encryption.. (Score:2, Informative)
Granted, the EFF is trying to protect our rights as citizens, and in my opinion they are doing a decent job as such; however, people please.. it is your responsibility to protect your own privacy, and if you are doing something that you do not want others to know about, please please use a Good Encryption [gnupg.org] system, a Good Anonymizing Proxy [blastproxy.com] for browsing the web, and definately get a Good Web Browser [getfirefox.com]. If people would follow these three little tips, it would make eavesdropping on your communications about 100 t
Re: (Score:2)
And the encryption algorithm that contains the government mandated backdoor?
Re:If only they would just use a proxy / encryptio (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are technologically reasonable techniques, such as the so-called "Trusted Computing" tools that are growing in use, but noti
This is the reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Why we support the EFF. The EFF helps citizens keep the government in check. This is just one of the many scandals the EFF has brought to the public's attention.
Instead of whining about the erosion of our civil liberties, do something about it - support the EFF.
Go EFF!!! (Score:1)
ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM
A documentary about the invisible war on culture.
Features EFF Attorney JASON SCHULTZ, RMS, DANGER MOUSE (of G
DoD, FBI, bah... lightweights. (Score:2)
eff press release (Score:2)
Not terribly concerned (Score:2)
This isn't a lawsuit like the one
probability states (Score:3, Insightful)
The nature of people in power states : they will gather all the dirty laundry of opponents (and "friends") they want to and use it to increase their power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or that the FBI is part of the military.
KFG
Re: (Score:1)
Or that the FBI is part of the military.
Or that anyone other than the guy who wrote the headline claims that the FBI is part of the military.
Re: (Score:1)
"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. .
"I'm sorry, If we have a battlefield PBX tapped by the
KFG
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: (Score:1)
1. The return of the Republican party. You know crazy ideas like small government.
2. Target people who are actually at fault for things. Iraq did not contain the terrorists that we seek to stop. It was a very bad decision. Innocent Americans die everyday in Iraq without preserving American freedom by stopping real terrorists!
3. The American public wakes up to the spying, removal of freedoms our troops are supposedly in Iraq to protect, and general fear campaign. Its too late
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at the history of political parties, you will see that the values of longstanding parties change over time. This might be simply because of a changing of the guard, change in key individuals themselves as they grow older, but more often than not, they change to cater to and attract a new pote
Re:Liberal hysteria!! (Score:4, Insightful)
And who kills the innocent Americans, exactly? I'd really like to know.
You ask.
My guess it primarly one of two groups.
Re: (Score:2)
It is important to understand that all three groups exist. Not all those labelled terrorists by the U.S. are militant Muslim fanatics dreaming of the World Caliphate, but not all of them are merely fighting for the freedom of their people either. Iraqi insurgents would mostly qualify as freedom fighters, for example, while Al-Qaeda is an apocalyptic paramilitary organisation enforcing a
Re: (Score:1)
Same as Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Things that make you go , "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."
Wasn't France our friend once? I wonder if that's why Americans are expating to Moscow this go round, rather than Paris. Fear of being "liberated" again.
KFG
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:Liberal hysteria!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I'll be happy if my vote even gets counted and added to the tally of the candidate I intended.
At this point I consider that unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
He has not left office yet. In fact, there are two more years to go. Hold your breath.
How about this [bbc.co.uk]? A nice, independent read...
it suprises you (Score:2)
It's not about the issues for people like you. For you, it is a "my sports team" or "my favorite softdrink" mentality. You do not value your liberty and you do not think through the issues. You are simply rooting for a team.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reich Wing hysteria!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Liberated Iraq.
Re:Liberal hysteria!! (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHA.. you do understand that only right wing evangelical neoconservatives think that "liberty" means the same thing as "bombed into the stone age with no sustainable government/security/industry or future (except a civil war) or merger into a some mega theocratic union with our friends in Iran".
The rest of us see your use of the word "Liberated" for what it is: stupid and empty repetition of Republican talking points.
The mission is already "Accomplished". The mission to create instability in the middle east in an attempt to slow down Europe from becoming the dominant superpower on earth. A mission to create world animosity against the US so that dumb neocon (even a camel can get through the eye of a needle if he's a born again camel) authoritarian followers have even more reasons to go to sleep each night wondering if perhaps the rapture will finally save them from this hell on earth we've created, and in the meantime to support every single right wing neofascist measure to transfer yet more funds from the public coffers into the bank accounts of our loving and benign "business leaders".
Bush and friends didn't give a rats ass about the iraqi people in 1991 through to 2003 and certainly don't give a flying fuck now. And if you think that they give a rats ass about the American people either, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
America has been royally screwed by the neocon movement and she is still taking it like a 2 cent whore. WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Re: (Score:2)
my post:
"HAHAHA. you do understand that only right wing evangelical neoconservatives think that "liberty" means the same thing as "bombed into the stone age with no sustainable government/security/industry or future (except a civil war) or merger into a some mega theocratic union with our friends in Iran"."
you said: "First, it's outright derision with the laughter bit."
You interpretted correctly. Outright derision is the effect I was going for.
you: "Then, you seque direc
Re: (Score:2)
Read the Wall Street journal, traditionally very conservative and Republican, even they are running articles on this. Two days ago there was a very telling one s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where am I talking about Iraq being a step up or down? Where am I talking about the world being safer or not?
Can't you respond to the actual argument, or must you change the subject to something, for which you were already supplied with talking points?