Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Politics Your Rights Online

AT&T Says Spying Is Too Secret For Courts 312

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T Says Spying Is Too Secret For Courts

Comments Filter:
  • by VirusEqualsVeryYes ( 981719 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @07:58AM (#18330173)
    So let me get this straight. AT&T says it can't defend itself because it would endanger national security (basically, AT&T is guilty), and because of this, the case should be throw out (a win for AT&T)?

    But I guess logic like that is adequate for government work.
  • Re:Sssssh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frp001 ( 227227 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:01AM (#18330189)
    >> Now the terrorists have won!
    As a matter of fact, they have. It is not about destroying a country, or individuals, it is a about destroying a lifestyle and beliefs (.i.e democracy) AFAIK they have won.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:01AM (#18330191)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by UnixSphere ( 820423 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:01AM (#18330197)
    They're hiding behind "national security" for an excuse not to go forward with the case, the Supreme Court needs to step in and do its job.

    It's mind boggling how just about anything that the Federal Government Agencies don't want the public to see, hide behind this excuse and usually get their way..

    The ability to call upon such protection should be regulated and restricted, but when's the last time Congress did anything positive for us citizens?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:03AM (#18330203)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Sssssh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:22AM (#18330341)
    it is a about destroying a lifestyle and beliefs (.i.e democracy)

    Uhm... No it's not. It's about getting political power.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:27AM (#18330395)
    A matter of internal security: the age-old cry of the oppressor.
  • by mwilliamson ( 672411 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:31AM (#18330431) Homepage Journal
    A government that is not accountable to its population is by default invalid and unjust, and needs to be delt with accordingly. Thank God we have the soap box and ballot box in this Great Country and have options to bring about change in a constructive manner. In other places, the ammo box is the only option available.
  • Re:Take your pick (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:33AM (#18330441)
    National Security is the antithesis of rule of law. National security, when overdone, bears a scary resemblance to say, North Korea. I believe Thomas Jefferson was well ahead of his time when he stated, "Those that would give a little liberty for security get none and deserve neither." It is very sobering to consider the wisdom and insight his words offered over two centuries ago. Even more sobering is that his imparted wisdom falls on deaf and ignorant ears.
  • by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:33AM (#18330445)
    AT&T is between a rock and a hard place. If they continue to say the case should be thrown out, the public will ridicule them. If they actually present evidence in their defense, the government can prosecute them for divulging state secrets. (Anyone who has a security clearance can testify to the penalties for the unauthorized release of classified information.) There really are no good options for AT&T.

  • Re:Take your pick (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wframe9109 ( 899486 ) * <bowker.x@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:36AM (#18330465)
    I'm pretty sure that was Ben Franklin :) But still, a very valid quote in todays world.
  • by Arclight17 ( 812976 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:40AM (#18330499)
    I agree. But voting hardly seems to be a viable option, as less than half the population could be bothered at the last presidential, let alone senate or house races. Then again, the only candidates who have a decent chance at election are incumbents (already corrupt) or those rich enough to buy the media time to secure a seat.
    Is anyone else terrified of their government?
    More to the point, is anyone else confused about how their fellow citizens can be so stupid sometimes?
  • Re:Take your pick (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geoffspear ( 692508 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:41AM (#18330507) Homepage
    No, Jefferson was just as good as misquoting Franklin as any idiot on Slashdot today, thank you very much. I believe it was George Washington who said "a penny saved is a penny you can spend later."
  • by greenguy ( 162630 ) <estebandido@ g m a i l . com> on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:45AM (#18330539) Homepage Journal
    There is only one catch, and that is Catch-22, which specifies that a concern for national security in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was a process that has to be kept secret. AT&T has the public interest in mind, therefore it cannot tell the public what it does. If it told the public what it does, it would no longer be working for the public. If it's good for us, they can't tell us why; if they told us why, it wouldn't be good for us.

    Because it does not exist there is no way it can be repealed, undone, overthrown, or denounced.
  • Re:Take your pick (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jojoba_oil ( 1071932 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:45AM (#18330543)
    You are forgetting, of course, that in America everybody is innocent until proven guilty -- except in the cases that either they're a terrorist or they're not a citizen. Being that AT&T's execs are all "patriotic" citizens, there is no question that they were "helping" the government fight freedo--i mean terrorism.
  • by geoffspear ( 692508 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:52AM (#18330595) Homepage
    Well, I've never heard of a court ordering someone to provide evidence that they're not guilty, but it's unbelievable to me that there are state secrets that can be trusted to AT&T that can't be trusted to a federal judge. Surely they could have a closed trial before one of the FISA Court judges? Oh wait, I forgot... the whole reason they're under investigation is that the FISA court judges' security clearances weren't good enough to let them oversee this perfectly legal but so supersecret we can't tell the judges about it program. Clearly the FISA judges aren't vetted well enough for us to be absolutely sure they're not working for al Qaeda.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @08:57AM (#18330637)
    Between Bush's Crusade and the Democrats needing to do their pimps' bidding the next two years are going to suck more than the last six. Yeah, lots of war, the US become more of a police state, DRM for everything digital and a sickening over regulation of the [US side of the] Internet to protect the children* from those dangerous "tubes".

    *Real children by age and all those that can't deal with the 21st Century.

    From Frank Zappa:


    You say yer life's a bum deal
    'N yer up against the wall . . .
    Well, people, you ain't even got no kinda
    Deal at all
    'Cause what they do
    In Washington
    They just takes care of NUMBER ONE
    An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
    You ain't even NUMBER TWO

  • by tfg004 ( 974156 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:05AM (#18330719)
    A court should always, in any case, be able to get all information from any company. If a company is not willing to provide data to a court, they should be prosecuted for obstruction. Especially in cases concerning the common good, like in this case.

    If this case is really too secret for a court, it proves that the government is commiting illegal activities, which puts them on the same line with terrorists regarding being a threat to the society.

    In a democracy, people always have the right to know what their government is doing. It seems democarcy died in the US and has been replaced by a more totalitarian government, surrounded by some large allied corporations, which tries to rule everything and anyone under the false pretext of protecting democracy and freedom.
    Which freedom? No privacy is no freedom!

    The only way to restore democracy and freedom in the US is to prosecute and sentence the corporations, like AT&T, that are helping the current government remove democracy and the freedom from it's citizens.

    If the court cannot sentence AT&T, the general public can. Just drop all your business with AT&T, cancel your contracts, let them feel they went too far this time.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:09AM (#18330769)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:12AM (#18330801) Journal

    I think the west has gotten to lax, not enough people remember anymore what freedom and democracy are REALLY about. This will change, it has before and it will again. Dictatorship just don't work, it ain't the natural state of affairs.

    BUT neither is freedom. The result is that you have a constant seesaw motion between the two extremes, the best you can hope for is that you happen to live during one of the quiet moments BUT you will only be able to do so thanks to the efforts of people who have come before.

    The sad fact is the seventies generation has done shit for freedom, they shouted a lot but haven't actually acomplished a single thing. It was the WW2 generation that has formed what we like to think of as our free society. They had to, WW2 forced change. Equality of the sexes and races is a direct result of the allied efforts to turn the tide of war.

    But whatever they achieved the natural state of affairs is to take back every hard won liberty for the practical day to day running of the world. Just as WW2 saw the injust internment of the japanese this war two has its miscarriages of justice.

    but it ain't gone over the edge, the proof? We can still report on it, the story of this and other mistakes is getting out and is getting attention. If the dictators had won, you wouldn't even know about it until you were taken off the street and never heard from again.

    As much as these stories may shock you they fact that they come out are proof that the system is still working.Not well, but then we get the system we voted for and Bush was re-elected.

  • by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:21AM (#18330879)

    Dear God, do you realize what you are advocating by saying that you would automatically vote to acquit? You would allow a serial child molester go to make a statement against Bush. That is, pardon my French, fucking sick.

    Let me get this straight. The President declares himself above the law. Government agencies routinely violate the constitution in the name of national security. Habeus Corpus is effectively suspended (just by saying "he's a terrorist"). AT&T won't resists testifying in spy cases because its info is too secret for courts. Our citizens and treasure are squandered in an unprovoked war of adventurism. And the thing that really gets your panties in a bunch is that some guy calls for a jury revolt? Think of the children!!!!1!

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:36AM (#18331069)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Stooshie ( 993666 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:41AM (#18331137) Journal

    ... Dictatorship just don't work, it ain't the natural state of affairs ...

    What is interesting is that, in fact, dictators are only kept in power by the will of the people (or at least the lack of the will to get rid of them). Under Hitler, for instance, the majority of the German population were quite well off and ignored the fact that their wealth came from the belongings stolen from those in concentration camps and alot of the work was done by slave labour (ie those in the concentration camps).

    It was only when Germany started loosing the war that Hitler decided to take his own life as he knew it was over and he wouldn't have the support of the people any more.

    I was the same with Saddam Hussain. He was in power for so long because the majority were, in fact, ok. They had an excellent education system (the most liberal in the middle east (women were granted an equal education)) and electricity and hospitals.

    I'm not condoning either of those rulers, but it is interesting that the main backbone democracy (ie the people choose those in power) is, in fact, the same reason that dictators stay in power.

    p.s. don't confuse democracy and freedom.

    Democracy is the process of choosing those in power.

    Freedom is the ability to say what we want, however truthful, stupid, offensive, funny etc... as long as we don't incite violence or hatred (as in Voltaire's quote "I disagree with everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.").

  • by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @09:55AM (#18331337)
    We can still report on it, the story of this and other mistakes is getting out and is getting attention. If the dictators had won, you wouldn't even know about it until you were taken off the street and never heard from again.

    Are you so sure this matters? Even if you can still report about and protest, what difference does it make it if you can't affect government.

    In fact, I would argue a dictatorship could use free press and other freedoms to bleed off dissent as long as the government machine is so complex that no one could possibly right injustices.

    Think of it as Tyranny of the Majority over those who don't fall in line.

    Secondly, I would argue WW2 did not force change as we often think in some areas of the world. Technically Japan was an elected democracy in a sense that had a constitutional monarchy. Contrary to belief, the emperor did not hold the end all be all power and he simply did not appoint or control the elected government directly.

    The main issue is with Japan they had elected a hawk group much like our own that got them embroiled in WW2 with the US even with the disagreement of some military officials of a win (notably Admiral Yamamoto)

    Even Tojo resigned in 1944 during the wake of the failures of the war much like you would expect in a parliamentary government.

    Germany and Italy were a different matter, but I just would like to point out the parallels between wartime Japan and our own. Not to mention Germany had converted from a democracy to a dictatorship in quite a short span... These things can and will happen if they are not guarded against.

    We might have not reached that point and may not, but I'm so not as worried as what Bush is doing with special laws and revocations of rights himself as someone else who comes along 20 years down the road who is actually evil and is drawn to politics simply because of the powers of government that we granted now.

  • Re:Take your pick (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @10:02AM (#18331453)
    It was indeed Ben Franklin, and for all his usual wisdom, he was full of crap when he said that. We trade freedom for safety every day. Traffic regulations make it safer to be on the roads, but we have to stay below the speed limit and stop at all those pesky traffic lights. We go through security at airports to detect all those bombs that none of us are carrying, in the hopes that nobody will carry a bomb onto a plane. We limit the firearms we can use and the situations we can use them in, in hopes that it will protect us from shooting ourselves in self-defense. Municipalities can search your home as part of a building safety inspection, and they can get a search warrant if you bar them entry, even lacking probable cause. And don't forget to buckle up. It's the law.

    Now, that's the state we were in before the Patriot Act, and you didn't hear a massive outcry then. That's 300 million people who apparently deserve neither freedom nor safety.

  • by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @10:14AM (#18331621) Homepage Journal
    I would like to give them credit for various tax cuts that happened during and since the Reagan administration, but since the congress also enacted those taxes in the first place, it's a wash.

    Too bad those tax cuts gave us national debt in the trillions, and thus the largest tax increase in history. It's just a matter of when it goes into effect.
  • Truth? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 ) <sherwin.amiran@us> on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @10:38AM (#18331985) Homepage Journal
    AT&T is evil, and is a willing participant with the government factions that want to throw us, head first, into an Orwellian nightmare.

    Furthermore, if you continue to do business with them *you* are a willing participant, and should grow some balls.

    Now, Comcast and their ilk are pretty evil, but they aren't nearly as bad as AT&T. Neither are the other major telecoms, and most certainly the RBOCs.

    If you _really_ want to make a difference in whatever small way you can, get off Slashdot, research an alternative phone company, ISP, or wireless company, and *switch*.

    Don't buy service from Cingular.
    Don't buy service from SBC/Ameritech/AT&T/whatever else the monster has eaten up.

    Turn off your DSL and switch to cable. Turn off your long-distance service and get VOIP or an RBOC's POTS unlimited plan.

    RBOCs are still out there; there just hurting for business. But many of these companies will guarantee that none of their records will go to the government (and in my area, TDS Metrocom is advertising this). There's still some leak over to AT&Ts systems, as they use AT&Ts local loops, but the more people that switch away from paying into AT&Ts pockets, the better.

    This is particularly relevant for Cingular. If you have Cingular, you should wise up. Sprint's SERO plans are cheaper, T-mobile is somewhat cheaper, and has vastly better customer service, and Verizon's footprint is larger and more reliable. Not to mention the regional carriers, which beat up Cingular market-by-market.

    There is no reason to do business with this devil of a company. While the government empowers them to do evil, the $$ they use for their transactions come from consumers, and you all need to wise up.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @11:28AM (#18332917)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by btarval ( 874919 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @11:29AM (#18332945)
    "This will change, it has before and it will again. Dictatorship just don't work, it ain't the natural state of affairs."

    That's basically what was said back when the Roman Republic fell. The Roman Imperial rule lasted for about 400-500 years. Though there were brief thoughts and talk of returning to the Republic, it never happed.

    Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it.

    While you might argue that "We're different now", I would also point out that we're really not. We've been passing laws to strip away rights for decades, and the Supreme Court has been upholding them. Take, for example, the Japanese internment during WWII. Although there was lip service paid to how wrong it was much later, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. More importantly, Congress has never put in place new laws to prevent it from happening again.

    You can expect this to take place in the future when we've had yet another panic attack. The laws are all set up for this. Only now it can be done in secret. Indeed, there are Prisons being built in the mid-west right now which have this as their optional charter.

    I'd like to share your optimism. But I see nothing which supports it except some political lipservice.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @11:48AM (#18333377)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary.yahoo@com> on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @11:49AM (#18333409) Journal
    Do you think that when sharia is instituted in a majority-Muslim country, people can just opt out?

    Honestly? No. We can't opt out of Christian marriage laws here and we can't buy booze on Sunday in a lot of places. Religious laws in general suck, and Sharia is a pretty harsh set of laws. Turkey banned the pro sharia, Muslim Refah party on the grounds that Sharia is incompatible with democracy.

    I wonder if the Muslim's being polled understand the implications of their decisions. Perhaps they feel that, being in a country founded on a constitution they will be protected from the excesses of Sharia law? I would like to know more about the questions and the methodology of these polls. Also, except for one very unscientific poll conducted in Chicago, I can't find any American polls.

    Religions in general breed intolerance. The fundamentalist religious right here in America is every bit as frightening as any Muslim theocracy. I say we get religion out of government all together. I don't want religions of any sort telling me what to do, what to drink, who to marry and so forth.
  • by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @11:59AM (#18333615)

    Sharia law is inherently unfree. Even if they do not want to force it on non-Muslims, it would still be unacceptable for them to use it in their own communities, for then women, homosexuals, the sexually liberal, etc. would be subject to discrimination. Do you think that when sharia is instituted in a majority-Muslim country, people can just opt out?

    OK. To put it mildly, you're really scared of Islam. Fair enough. Perhaps you or someone you care about is a member of a minority living somewhere under an oppressive religious state. Whether or not your fears of religious discrimination are justified -- I don't know where you live -- you should probably be glad that there are such nations in the world as the United States, where the prohibition of a state religion is codified in law. Furthermore, you should be likewise concerned when the rule of law is perverted by the likes of the current US administration with its illegal wiretapping program. Because once the authority of the Constitution over the government is questioned, all sorts of things become possible. For instance, the establishment of an official religion, whose laws would be imposed on believers and unbelievers alike.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @12:03PM (#18333701)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @12:35PM (#18334257)
    "I think the west has gotten to lax, not enough people remember anymore what freedom and democracy are REALLY about. "

    Oh, what is freedom about? War, pain, suffering? Freedom isn't free? What a load of crap.

    Until we address the real issue of America's continued aggression and meddling in the affairs of other nations, toppling governments, installing others; all this is completely moot. Preventing terrorism has nothing to do with curtailing freedoms and the department of the Homeland and everything to do with our own actions towards others.

    This has been going on since Wilson. In fact, Wilson was the one who created this whole "democratize the world for peace" thing. Bush has simply continued the Wilson doctrine. 9/11 was blowback plain and simple and until we become a peaceful nation, we will never be at peace. The TSA simply harasses people but it doesn't make me feel any safer, it just makes me dehydrated.

    You know what makes me feel safe. Unopenable doors to the cockpit. Why how simple! Instead we have Homeland departments, Transporations security departments, torture, invasions, grief, and a federal deficit the size of Jupiter.

    If only we listened to the words of president Washington. But like many Americans, you probably think Washington was just a libertarian sucker and the Constitution is just a rag of paper.
  • by jafac ( 1449 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @12:46PM (#18334429) Homepage
    A see-saw equilibrium between tyranny and freedom is a nice model and I'm sure you'd like reality to fit that.

    But there's another factor that is making these see-saw swings more and more radical with each cycle, and each swings' peak, whether to the political left, or the political right, brings us closer and closer to a sustainable fascism. This has been happening since humans first became civilized, and with every cycle, we plunge deeper and deeper, and the damage becomes more and more permanent.

    Orwell's point was: modern technology makes it easier for tyrants to control massive amounts of people.

    First, clay tablets, then, books, then radio, then television, now the internet - all are mass communication devices, all are like a factory. Free Minds are trucked into the loading dock. With industrial efficiency, those free minds are hammered into molds, and they are delivered as a finished, quality product: Good Little Consumers.

    Add to the mass-communication; propaganda, over-consolidated newsmedia and entertainment industries (also tightly affiliated with the defense industry), databases, wiretapping, RFID-tracking, automated mass video monitoring, satellite surveillance, air strikes, new "non-lethal" weapons, etc. - and the worst factor of all: greedy tyrants (and their wannabe sycophants) who will twist any philosophy around, be it economical or religious, to suit their ends.

    Tyrants may not have the tools today, to truly, efficiently control a population. In fact, one of the newest tools; the Internet, seems to have backfired, and slowed things down. (that battle is still being fought: see - Viacom's $1Bln. suit against Google).

    But new technologies march on. They're getting there.

    One day, we will all be on our knees.
    I think this is inevitable.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary.yahoo@com> on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @06:26PM (#18339771) Journal
    Good points. Except the bit about Iran, their current president notwithstanding. Persians tend to be a bit different than others in the region.

    Spirituality is neutral. Organized religion has always been more about power than a personal relationship with the divine. No one needs a priest to know God, or the Universe, or whatever you want to call it.

    I am well aware of the more tolerant branches of Christianity. To be honest, religion is a positive force in most of the lives it touches. However, I think other institutions not based on power and control (such as many of the branches of Buddhism or Taoism, which, without a focus on the divine I hesitate to call "religions.") would serve as well if not better, and would not have the many down sides of organized religion.

    Would I outlaw religion? Never. It would be counterproductive for one thing. And without something to take its place, it would do more harm than good.

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...