Warrantless Wiretapping Decisions Issued By Ninth Circuit Court 156
sunbird writes "The Ninth Circuit yesterday issued two decisions in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuits against the National Security Agency (Jewel v. NSA) and the telecommunications companies (Hepting v. AT&T). EFF had argued in Hepting that the retroactive immunity passed by Congress was unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit decision (PDF) upholds the immunity and the district court's dismissal of the case. Short of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, this effectively ends the suit against the telecoms. In much better news, the same panel issued a decision (PDF) reversing the dismissal of the lawsuit against the N.S.A. and remanded the case back to the lower court for more proceedings. These cases have been previously discussed here."
Rights..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always worked for those in charge first and the people second. It does stuff for you and I (you know, roads, aqueducts...) but that's not who it was designed to serve. The constitution is a blank check.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
NSA case (Score:4, Insightful)
Impeach (Score:4, Insightful)
The court is corrupt on the face of this decision. Impeach the judges responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it seems the court's decision with regard to the retroactive immunity is correct. The legal basis to challenge the new law simply does not exist. The blame should rest on Congress for passing such a law.
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctively native American criminal class except Congress." - Mark Twain
Re:Impeach (Score:5, Informative)
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed
Of course courts have interpreted it to not apply to all laws. I guess the wording was too vague.
Re: (Score:2)
"⦠it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly [of Virginia], supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner.
On this objection it might he observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another - -by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
-- James Madison, Report of 1800
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I thought. Then I read the decision: the plaintiffs have about seventy billion objections to the FISA amendment, but they never once mention this clause.
Most of the plaintiffs' stated objections are weak -- because centuries of national security case law and legislation have led to a situation where trampling on rights in the name of national security is perfectly legal -- and they didn't bother to play their only strong card, the "ex post facto" clause.
I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if the jud
Re: (Score:2)
Article I, section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
What part of "no" do you not understand?
Impeachment isn't an option (Score:3)
The supreme court, as thus far constituted in many different ways, doesn't understand ANY part of "no" or "shall not." Nor has the executive to date, nor congress.
Examples abound.
The problem is, the constitution has no teeth: there are no penalties for any one, or any combination, of the executive, judiciary, or congress violating the constitution's explicit directives (and their oaths as well.) None whatsoever. Furthermore, even should something (magically!? accidentally!?) be declared correctly unconstitu
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is one penalty, and it applies to all three branches: impeachment and removal from office.
The problem with this procedure is that we effectively have multiple branches working together toward the same goal (in this case, an ex post facto law). In this arrangem
Re: (Score:2)
The second amendment provides the people with recourse.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Score:3)
Now, before anybody starts going all mainstream-media on me and telling me what a ridiculous and dangerous idea State nullification is, let me tell you that I have done my homework and am very familiar with the history of the concept.
You should know that state nullification is not a "racist" idea. One Southern governor -- once -- threatened to use it against the Civil Rights act, but never carried through on his th
Re: (Score:2)
No, I really don't think it is. In fact, I would bet you good money that a majority of these people sincerely believe they are doing their very best for the country.
The real problem, I think, is that these people are truly amateurs and dilettantes doing work in roles that require experts in the most precise sense of the word. I have repeatedly seen senators and congressmen asked questions about the constitution, where they are unable to answer even in general. And no one holds their feet to the fire for it
Re: (Score:2)
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Re: (Score:2)
Passing unconstitutional laws is not the same thing as "The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." (ref: Google)
While one could argue that the laws themselves constitute "betrayal" of some party (e.g. the citizens of the United States), this is not the same thing as treason.
Re: (Score:2)
"Passing unconstitutional laws is not the same thing as 'The crime of betraying one's country...'"
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, go after the Congressmen responsible for unconstitutional laws in court using that argument. While I disagree that it is treasonous, I do agree that they need to be held accountable and pay consequences. Given that the Constitution itself specifies that the only penalty for treason is death, I would fully support you in your effort.
Maybe that would encourage our elected representatives to pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this from the ninth circuit, the one that usually actually stands up for the people over government or big business, the one that the even more corrupt USSC most often overturns.
What can I say? Hey Feds, just fuck all y'all. I won't even give you the time to stop and piss on your graves after the revolution you seem so intent on forcing us into.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey Feds, just fuck all y'all. I won't even give you the time to stop and piss on your graves after the revolution you seem so intent on forcing us into."
There was a time when I would have called this treasonous. But today, I understand its essential basis in truth. May it never come to that day, but if it does, I now recognize much better who the real Patriots are.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when I would have called this treasonous.
Kids are taught in school that the government is the country. That's not true, and whether the government represents the country has to do with whether it's following the Constitution or not, since that's it job description and contract.
Of course the oath of office seems to mean nothing to any of these scoundrels.
Re: (Score:2)
"corrupt" means different things depending which side of the law you work for. The US is in the midst of a legal system which makes and enforces it's own interpretation of right and wrong.
Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. The Ninth Circuit just made it OK to use "I was just following orders" as a defense, if you're a telecom.
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the point is that Congress can't retroactively make a law that holds someone criminally liable for something that they did in the past before the law was passed, but they *can* and always have been able to make a law that retroactively removes something that was a crime in the past. The idea is to protect people from being held accountable for something that was perfectly legal in the past, but there is no reason to have a protection to keep people as criminals even after the law that criminalized them was overturned.
In this case, the problem is that it does allow illegal activity to be condoned officially later on, as long as they don't get caught until the law is passed. That said, I think it is a political question, not a judicial question. It may well be that a law accidentally criminalizes a well-meaning person who is actually guilty by the letter of the law, but not by the intent of its framers. For that reason, I'd probably have to agree with the court and state that nothing prevents Congress, as the legislative branch, from absolving or nullifying previous criminal behavior by legislation.
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
For that reason, I'd probably have to agree with the court and state that nothing prevents Congress, as the legislative branch, from absolving or nullifying previous criminal behavior by legislation.
So far that's fine but Congress should not be able to absolve breaking the constitution without amending the constitution. So if your fourth amendment rights were violated, Congress shouldn't have the power to pass a regular law granting immunity to those who broke it. In that case you might as well use the constitution as toilet paper.
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Informative)
So if your fourth amendment rights were violated
Where's your cause of action though? Presuming your rights were violated by the Government collecting the meta-data of your phone calls; did the Government use this data in any criminal prosecutions? If it did then you'd be able to raise the 4th amendment as a defense; it might not be successful but you could raise it. I'm not so sure you can just sue the Government and/or telecoms after the fact when the data was never used against you though.
Understand that I'm not saying I agree with any of this. For better or worse this is the way it is though.
Once again, thank you President (then Senator) "I will filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity" Obama. Meet the new boss; same as the old!
Re: (Score:3)
"did the Government use this data in any criminal prosecutions? If it did then you'd be able to raise the 4th amendment as a defense"
No, we use the 4th amendment as an OFFENSE, not a defense.
Those rights exist to give us protection from the government, defensively or offensively.
The proper thing here is a major class-action suit by the PEOPLE, not by some lawyers.
Real people need to stand up, riot, and make it known that this will no longer be tolerated.
And sadly, there's no peaceful way around this. Civil
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Interesting)
You raise a good point here. Traditionally, it's been well-upheld that a search isn't illegal if the person had immunity from anything that the government found. Namely, the remedy for an illegal-search is that the evidence and any further evidence collected solely as a result of that evidence is thrown out and cannot be used against you.
No one was ever charged with a crime as a result of these wiretaps, so there's no remedy to grant.
Like it or not, as one person said, Congress should not be able to absolve a constitutional violation, but they didn't. They absolved a STATUTORY violation, that of wiretapping. Wiretapping is not immediately a constitutional issue.
Re: (Score:3)
No one was ever charged with a crime as a result of these wiretaps, so there's no remedy to grant.
Are we certain about that? I thought that part of the problem was the circular logic used in this case. ie, The government will not let you know if you were spied upon because they might be building a terrorism case against you. As far as I can recall, that was the whole of the initial justification and why congress had to act to pass the law.
So how do we know?
The obvious and easy remedy would be to declare the law null and let the public see for themselves what was done on their behalf. That is the only wa
Re: (Score:2)
It goes on to say that the government cannot issue a warrant based upon illegally obtained
Didn't say I liked or agreed with it (Score:2)
but it would seem to me that you would be stretching the 4th Amendment to an absurd degree to claim that the government has the right to conduct a search whenever, wherever and however they want so long as they don't actually attempt to prosecute you based on the information they obtain.
Just said that's the way it is, for better or worse.
Food for thought: The 5th Amendment says you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself but the Government can still compel you to testify in a criminal proceeding by offering you immunity against any crimes laid bare as a result of your testimony.
Re: (Score:2)
*sed "s/interesting/(sneaky|devious|clever)/"
Re: (Score:2)
Food for thought: The 5th Amendment says you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself but the Government can still compel you to testify in a criminal proceeding by offering you immunity against any crimes laid bare as a result of your testimony.
That is not compelling your testimony...that is coercing your testimony. You can say no. They are simply making you an offer too good to refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
You can say no
And you'll go to jail for contempt of court until you change your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason we need to throw away the Constitution or the Bill of Rights just to get the "bad guys". It's not like every police agency from the small town sheriff to the FBI isn't familiar with the process of obtaining warrants to tap phone lines. This just means they've no need for probable cause.
The flip side of this is that nearly every wireless hub sold fro
Re: (Score:2)
In that case you might as well use the constitution as toilet paper.
I think we are way passed that point by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The current rule of law appears to exist only in the minds of the judges / president / congressmen currently in office.
They do whatever they want, and as a citizen, you come in second place. It's not your position to know the law, only to obey those who will gleefully interpret it for you, to their advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The current rule of law appears to exist only in the minds of the judges / president / congressmen currently in office.
Yeah, that's "The Rule of Man". It's precisely why the US 'Revolutionary' War was fought - to set up a Natural Rights Republic operating under the Rule of Law.
It lasted in its entirety a year or two (or for the majority of issues about 70 years).
The founders never expected anything different - they expected a revolution of some sort every few generations.
Re: (Score:2)
*Looks around* So, what's keeping this one?
We're exceedingly overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, it's time to admit it: the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land. With all the shit flowing through Congress recently, can you doubt it?
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that the warrant-less wiretapping violates the constitution and congress lacks the authority to pass a law that allows it therefore congress cant just allow someone to do it and then pass a law granting them immunity after the fact either.
Quite frankly they lack the authority and any judge worth their salt would toss the typical "we did it in the public interest" argument out. Clearly it is NOT in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
However, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Unfortunately, for many people, it is not at all clear that it is not in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, in fact, a number of otherwise sane, rational people who are clamoring for the government to go ahead a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In your opinion, has the United States ever been engaged in an illegal or otherwise unlawful war?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
"that doesn't seem ridiculously out-of-bounds for their authority"
And theres the rub. Warrantless wiretapping is clearly out-of-bounds for any level of government. Even if congress passed a law allowing this, the president signed it, his executive branch enforced it, and the supreme court affirmed it (and PUBLIC legal defense against the government attempts is the first place the telcos should have gone with this).
Every citizen has an obligation to defend our constitution from government tyranny when they see it. By shedding blood or having their blood shed if necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This public good you speak of... Was it perhaps slavery? [filibustercartoons.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't matter. The real issue is that some of the states wanted out. Their reasons are beside the point they should have been free to peacefully go their own way. Before the civil war things were different. States were states like France is a state and the US was more like the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution doesn't have any direct provisions. It does have a couple for that purpose though.
The right to trial by a jury of peers was another way that the people were supposed to have the ability to prevent the government from enforcing unjust laws.
The second amendment was to ensure that military power (by way of military grade weaponry) was distributed and in the hands of the people so that at the end of the day the government had to fear their collective anger. This was to be the recourse of the pe
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea there. Now, you know what it means, and I know what it means, and anybody who's paid attention in Civics class knows what it means, but try scamming up some military-grade weapons for civ
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that warrantless wiretapping *is* allowed - for short periods of time... And wiretapping/review of foreign correspondence"
Allowed by whom? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I think you are confusing the powers which the government has illegally granted itself with the powers it has actually been granted.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Required: Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, all presented to a judge, who might, if your presentation is good enough, issue a warrant.
Then you can search, wiretap, read email, etc. As long as you're looking for what you said you were looking for such that it agrees with the reasons underlying warrant.
Anything else -- anythi
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Due diligence. Everybody who has grown up in the US has at some point come into contact with the notion that law enforcement need warrants. I'm not sure how they could possibly believe that there weren't any laws being broken when they weren't being provided with any documentation.
These are organizations that have attorneys and if they weren't aware of the illegality of it it was purely because they were specifically looking the other way.
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who overstep those bounds, but each and every one of us has a moral and ethical obligation to weigh every request, order or demand from authority before complying. Doing the right thing is not always easy, but that's life. If people, as a whole, would grow a collective backbone, those in authority would be far less inclined to overstep their bounds because they would have the proverbial snowball's chance of succeeding with whatever it is they are trying to do that is unethical or dishonest. As long as we keep complying with authority because "I was just following orders" we are willing accomplices in their evil. That's not the way I want to live my life.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who overstep those bounds, but each and every one of us has a moral and ethical obligation to weigh every request, order or demand from authority before complying.
Exactly right! I for one vote that Qwest be restored the government contracts that were stripped from it[1] when it grew a spine. ([1] -- Should I say "he", now, after Citizens United, another government oxymoron? Or perhaps "she", since Qwest was acting in the power of good?)
As long as we keep complying with authority because "I was just following orders" we are willing accomplices in their evil.
Yeah, except ignoring the order "leave this crime scene", while not a constitutional order, will result in your jailing or beating or dying, so I obey those types of unconstitutional orders... (I tend not to ask "please be specific
Re: (Score:2)
Not on Joe Nacchio's watch!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nacchio#Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act.2C_and_granting_of_a_new_trial [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nuremburg Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9th circuit isn't doing that; Congress did it in 2008. That was the very intent of the FISA amendment, and there really wasn't any ambiguity about it. Many people simply hated it at the time. (Though most didn't hate it enough to vote against the people who did it -- both McCain and Obama who supported it as senators, combined got an overwhelming majority of the votes for president. Doing what they did, didn't destroy their campaigns.) Don't blame the court for that. The AT&T suit really ought to be dead; the time to fight for justice was 3.5 years ago and we collectively decided it wasn't important.
We need to accept and take responsibility for that decision. It is hypocritical to vote against justice and still demand it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "FISA amendment", constitutionally speaking. Don't give it credence it has no right to.
FISA is unauthorized, illegal legislation which exhorts government employees to break their oaths. No more than that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Great. The Ninth Circuit just made it OK to use "I was just following orders" as a defense, if you're a telecom.
No, what the Ninth Circuit said was, "if the US Government asks for your assistance in a national security matter and you act in good faith to comply with the existing legal requirements, you can't be prosecuted even if the Government is later found to have acted illegally." Which is as it should be. We want the private sector to cooperate with the government on national security matters. It's a bad thing to ask companies to cooperate with the government and then try to jail them later when they do even aft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 4th amendment directly defines what is reasonable: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Anything OTHER than that is unreasonable, constitutionally speaking. Look to the 1950's telecom laws for 100% confirmation that this was well understood by both congress and the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
We want the private sector to not be assaulted by government employees operating in violation of both their oaths and the constitution. When it is blatantly obvious that the government is acting in such a manner -- as it clearly was here -- then any entity that supports the government is equally guilty of malfeasance of the most egregious type, and deserves neither a pass on the matter or the respect (not to mention pa
Re: (Score:2)
Do that enough times and pretty soon the private sector will never cooperate willingly with the government under any circumstances even to the detriment of national security.
Can you say "constitutional loophole"? I can. Yes, I would rather corporations not "cooperate" with the government in anything other than paying taxes, and obeying lawful orders, which do not include the black boxes still resident in AT&T facilities. How does a corporation know that it's a lawful order? If it will cost the corporation any money, any money at all to comply, then the corporation should get advice from counsel. Counsel knows the law. Are there laws that counsel cannot know? Then we
Times sure have changed (Score:2, Insightful)
Richard Nixon would have loved this era.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it really any surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
That a government acting against it's Constitution will have courts that uphold acting against it's Constitution.
Constitution is naught but a museum piece. We have ceased to recognize it by passing laws and court decisions that by-pass it entirely.
Re:Is it really any surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
The courts appear to have decided that threats from alleged terrorists trump the threat of tyranny by the executive branch. That's why State Secrets doctrine so often wins, and that's why the courts have protected the NSA from judicial scrutiny in general.
I fear that with the eternal War on Terror, they've confused which threat is greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I believe that's what King George claimed as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Great...they'll just haul me out of my house first.
Sighs....9 down, 1 to go.
**
First Amendment - invalidated if you don't have a press pass.
Second Amendment - just you try it....especially out of your home state.
Third Amendment - woot.something is still protected for now.
Fourth Amendment - GPS tracking, infrared monitoring, phone tapping, yeah...this one's prett much dead.
Fifth Amendment - let's just label him a terrorist (or Ron Paul supporter). And waive his right to a trial.
Sixth Amendment - well, let's s
Re: (Score:2)
You punted on the eighth. Water-boarding; indefinite imprisonment without recourse or visits or information provided to family and/or friends about your whereabouts and/or condition; assassination by stealth without anything remotely resembling due process; million dollar bails; million dollar fines; imprisonment in the USA's involuntary sodomy system (1% of the population and counting upwards.) Hell, a DVD I was watching the other day blithely informed me I was subject to a half MILLION dollar fine if I ha
Nothing unexpected here (Score:2)
Nothing to see here:
Government instructs company to break the law. Government then gives company immunity.
What did you expect? For them to take the immunity back away?
Your rights as a citizen are only important in so far as you vote for the right guy or spend money. They could care less otherwise.
Freedoms (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedoms (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... you seriously think we get a free choice to elect our officials?
At best we get a choice between 2 or 3 identical people who the system has already made sure will all promote the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... you seriously think we get a free choice to elect our officials? At best we get a choice between 2 or 3 identical people who the system has already made sure will all promote the status quo.
No, I neither said nor implied that we have a free choice: we simply vote. The reason for status quo is because that is what the people want. If enough people, and by enough I mean 90% - 95% of the population, suddenly wanted marijuana legalized, it would be foolish for a politician wanting to remain in office not to hop on the legalization band wagon. Actually, our concept of democracy is very much rigged with precious little difference between parties - sometimes none at all - and corporate special int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Watch all the 1/500 (Score:2)
It's totally ridiculous to tap other phones leaving theirs alone!
Plus statistics prove their all insane sociopaths, many have bunkers or remote cottages so when they blow up the world they and they alone can survive!
(Above was facetious, but true).
A true Constitutional Crisis (Score:2)
The 4th Amendment is very clear (probable cause -> specific warrant -> seizure as authorized by the warrant), and so is Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), which plainly states the Constitution is the highest law of the land. The 2008 FISA act blatantly contradicts both very clear articles of law by stating that the President's assurance that a directive is lawful (even if it obviously isn't) is protection from the law. If retroactive telcom immunity stands,
Re:Law Enforcement usually wins (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the state of the laws in effect today, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't committed some kind of offense within the last month. It's more like "You're a criminal but you have nothing to be concerned about unless we want to enforce it"
Re:Law Enforcement usually wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the state of the laws in effect today, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't committed some kind of offense within the last month. It's more like "You're a criminal but you have nothing to be concerned about unless we want to enforce it"
Not to mention that many many law enforcement agents are themselves guilty of violating the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's because it's hard to control innocent men without having some crime to charge them with.
As the saying goes, if you can't find a crime to charge someone with, keep inventing new laws until you can.
Re:Law Enforcement usually wins (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that you have committed violations of the law... it doesn't matter if they're gross violations or even if the common person realizes they're violations. Most people commit some sort of violation every day (Ever go 56 in a 55 zone? That's breaking the law). Just because it's inconsequential, unenforced or otherwise ignored doesn't mean you're not breaking a law. We're heading in a direction where everything is illegal and we just accept a state that can arrest you for anything if they decide they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you quote book, chapter and verse from the laws on the books in the state and municipality where you live? No? Then you don't know whether or not you have violated any laws. For example, someone once told me that where I live, if the state troopers catch you stopping to take a leak outside, they can arrest you and you will have to register as a sex offender. K
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the courts require evidence to convict you these days.
A number of the more insane judges recently ruled that an office can now charge you with speeding violations based off of eye-sight alone. That's right, an office need only think you are speeding, using no radar / laser / timing method, just straight eye-balling the speed, and you can get a ticket. I hope these people get cancer, that it meta-sizes to every one of their organs, that they spend months trying to battle it with chemotherapy and r
Re: (Score:2)
[...] and that their loved ones weep when they die.
You know, I've never really given it much thought; I know that sphincters open when death occurs, so it's entirely likely that not only urine and feces appear, but tears as well. Grammar is fun. (s/office/officer/g; and it sounds like the cancer is ordering from McDonalds. (Hey, I'm drunk too and enjoying it... :) Merry New Year; "moderation in everything including moderation.")
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone won't testify against themself doesn't mean they can't be charged with stupid crap and then prosecuted because they are technically guilty just because the law itself is stupid.
They were paid to spy (Score:2)
AT&T was paid for their time. They have an interest in making money.
Re:Good decisions (Score:5, Informative)
I can't think of a single case in which corporate civil disobedience has succeeded.
I seem to recall there being a little phone company called Qwest saying "No. Come back with a warrant.".
Re: (Score:2)
Then, thank you, EFF, for what you've been doing. Thank you for raising the issues and at least attempting to bring about the change you want to see. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude, despite the grumbling from the A.C. above.
Re: (Score:2)
I think not. The cost of additional wiretapping, for legitimate (non-LEO / non-security) businesses, is having a detrimental effect on profit.
Imagine if you were a high frequency trader, and the NSA's wiretapping added an extra second to the execution of each trade. The government's boys and their toys are getting in the way of business, and that would make me extremely unhappy. Like un-electing any senator giving them support. ^_^