AT&T Says Spying Is Too Secret For Courts

The Wired blog 26B Stroke 6 reports on the arguments AT&T and the US government made to an appeals court hearing motions in the case the EFF brought against the phone giant for their presumed part in the government's program(s) to spy on Americans. In essence AT&T seems to have argued that the case against the telecom for allegedly helping the government spy on Americans is too secret for any court, despite the Administration's admission it did spy on Americans without warrants.

27B Stroke 6

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Get it right: the blog name is "27B Stroke 6" which is a beautiful reference to the out-of-control bureaucracy in Terry Gilliam's movie "Brazil" [wikipedia.org].

Re:27B Stroke 6

[Tim C]

For those not in the know (as the wiki article doesn't seem to mention it), a "27B stroke 6" is a form that Harry Tuttle says he'd have to fill in before he could do anything to help, even if your apartment is on fire. (I forget the exact quote, but it's something like "I couldn't even give you a glass of water if your apartment was on fire without filling in a 27B/6 first")

Re:Take your pick

[Fnkmaster]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

        * Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)

Yup.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How's that for logic

[krlynch]

That's not what they're claiming at all. From their brief, starting bottom of page 1:

In light of [the Government's] invocation of the state secrets privilege, Plaintiffs will not
have access to the evidence necessary to establish standing, and, just as important,
AT&T will be prevented from tendering any evidence that would disprove it.
Firmly established precedent mandates that a case must be dismissed whenever it
becomes clear that the state secrets privilege will prevent a plaintiff from proving a
necessary element of his case or a defendant from defending itself fully on an
issue. In cases such as this one, where there is "no hope of a complete record and
adversarial development of the issue," the only proper result is to dismiss the
complaint.

where the quotes are from previous cases.

Contrary to the blog's claims, AT&T is NOT saying that national security prevents them from litigating ... they are saying that the Government's actions prevent both the plaintiffs AND themselves from litigating: the plaintiffs can't show they have standing without access to information AT&T doesn't have and hence can't produce, and AT&T can't obtain material is needs to defend itself. The Government, not AT&T, has claimed the state secret privilege. It's the same result perhaps, but for a very different set of reasons than the blog post claims. I'm not going to take a position on the state secrets privilege here, but a full debate on the issue needs to correctly state the facts.

Re:Need proof or it ain't true

[spun]

Well, that link is busted, but I did as you said and found some polls, and here's the thing: you left out a very important point: the muslims polled were asked if THEY would wish to operate under Sharia law. They were NOT asked if they wanted to force Sharia law on others.

That is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, and I fail to see how you can in good conscience leave that part out unless you really are trying to whip up hatred of Muslims.

Re:The darkest hour is just before the dawn

[LynnwoodRooster]

Pinochet was such a nice guy he was simply invited to rule?

I'd agree with most of your comments except for Chile. Pinochet actually WAS asked to stage the coup, and VOLUNTARILY stepped down when no longer needed. I know it's not a popular position, but if you talk with many Chileans in Chile (and for the record, I actually ran a company and lived in Chile for a few years) and look at the historical record, you'll find this is the truth. If only the news would carry it.

I'd ask that you read Robert Moss' excellent book "Chile's Marxist Experiment" for some additional information:

"(i) the objective evidence that the Allende government had plunged Chile into the worst social and economic crisis in its modern history characterised by a Weimar rate of inflation; (ii) the conviction that the Marxist parties were aiming for nothing less than the seizure of absolute power; (iii) the existence of a clear popular mandate for military intervention, demonstrated by the declarations of the Supreme Court, Congress and opposition and trade union leaders; (iv) the discovery of the efforts of the extreme left to incite rebellion within the armed forces themselves. "

NOTE: The Chilean Congress and Supreme Court ruled "the government is not merely responsible for isolated violations of the law and the constitution; it has made them into a permanent system of conduct." and actually called for a military-based coup. Pinochet was, in fact, invited to rule against a corrupt and unresponsive executive. And then voluntarily stepped down when asked to do so.

My own experience was that nearly all Chileans basically summed up Pinochet as follows: He'll answer to God for his crimes, but he was good for Chile.

wrong

[rhombic]

See the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] for the numbers in a poll done in the UK. Among 16 to 24 year old muslims living in the UK, 37% said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, as opposed to 60% who wanted to live under UK law. I would suggest 60/40 does not constitute a vast majority. "Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed". WTF???? The numbers do go down quite a bit for the older people polled, but double digit percentages still would prefer Sharia law even at 55 years old.