Could Wiretap Ruling Threaten Telcos That Cooperated?
from the hindsight-is-20/20 dept
A federal judge yesterday ruled that the government's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, a decision that could potentially open up telecom companies that gave into to the NSA to legal liability. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued AT&T, alleging it gave the NSA an open door to its data, a lawsuit the company and the government have been working hard to make disappear. BellSouth and Verizon have also been sued, with a lawyer from one of the groups suing says that now that a judge has ruled the program illegal, their case just got a lot easier. Of course, the decision is being appealed, so it's too early for anything to be certain -- though Qwest is still smiling after its decision to not cooperate with the program.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Interesting article in todays Journal
May Drop the Gift
Of a Foiled Plot
August 18, 2006; Page A14
New York City on Wednesday released more audiotapes from September 11, the day whose realities won't go away no matter how corrosive and divided our national politics become.
What are the realities of 9/11? Oliver Stone's movie, "World Trade Center," released a few weeks ago, conveys the horror, valor and loss that day. That is one reality.
The more enduring reality is the one manifest last week when British authorities stopped a plot to destroy perhaps 10 passenger planes over the Atlantic Ocean: Five years after September 11, radical Islam remains an ideology whose active intention is to annihilate civilians around the world on a massive scale, and to do so repeatedly.
On Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff put before us the reality that should, but doesn't, transcend all the others now. "We've got to have a legal system that lets us . . . prevent things from happening rather than . . . reacting after the fact." But we don't.
Congress has before it two chances to begin the task of shaping a legal system appropriate to the threat: the Specter bill to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and its responsibility after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision to write rules and procedures for military commissions. Given the political climate, it's far from certain that Congress will get this right.
Over the past year the Democrats have built a political case that President Bush's conduct of the war on terror is trampling civil liberties and the rule of law. There is a list for the Bush assault on "our values": the NSA's warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo, phone-call datamining and of course his Supreme Court nominations.
Whatever the merits of all this, Congress's Democrats are publicly committed to making this version of the Bush civil-liberties record a voting issue for their party in November and beyond. So presumably they will remain deaf to Secretary Chertoff's plea for a legal system tailored to fight Islamic terror, at least until after 2008.
A fair summary of the party's position on civil liberties just now may be found in Sen. Patrick Leahy's remarks after Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. "This is a nomination," Sen. Leahy said, "that threatens the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans now and for generations to come. This president is in the midst of a radical realignment of the powers of the government and its intrusiveness into the private lives of Americans. . . . I am concerned that if confirmed this nominee will further erode the checks and balances that have protected our constitutional rights for more than 200 years."
So a question: Which set of civil liberties do the Democrats have in mind -- those that existed in 1791? In 1896? 1942? 1965? 1976? Or now? British Prime Minister Tony Blair put this question bluntly in a speech in California last month: "The threat of global terrorism bent on mass slaughter means traditional civil liberty arguments are not so much wrong, as just made for another age." Which age does Sen. Leahy want to live in?
The Fourth Amendment -- affecting the status of warrants, probable cause and surveillance -- is an excellent proxy for how we should try to think about shaping a set of laws and legal procedures appropriate to our times.
In a compelling post-9/11 article that every member of Congress involved in this effort should read, "Local Policing After the Terror," Harvard constitutional scholar William J. Stuntz argued in the June 2002 Yale Law Review that an analysis of the Fourth Amendment the past 40 years makes clear that courts have tailored criminal-procedure rules to fit the threat at the time, tightening or relaxing criminal procedures in line with a fall or rise in crime.
After the low-crime '50s, it imposed the exclusionary rule on state courts. In very high-crime 1968, the Warren Court, in Terry v. Ohio, softened the probable cause standard for police street frisks to reasonable suspicion. For 20 years after 1970, the courts enacted various exceptions to the warrant requirement, i.e., allowed warrantless searches.
Here is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in oral remarks during the stop-and-search Arvizu case argued on Nov. 27, 2001: "We live in perhaps a more dangerous age today than we did when this event took place . . . The Ninth Circuit opinion seemed to be a little more rigid than . . . common sense would dictate today."
Just over a week ago, the Second Circuit Court upheld a district court ruling in favor of New York City's random subway searches, concluding that the program was a "special need" and "that need is weighty."
The Senate doesn't think so. The Senate is barely able to have a conversation about any of this. At the Judiciary Committee's hearing late last month to discuss Sen. Arlen Specter's bill to revise FISA, Sen. Ted Kennedy submitted that the Bush program wants to override "the core of our democracy" and "we should not yield to that arrogant request." The day before that hearing New York Rep. Jerry Nadler called again for a special counsel to investigate the warrantless wiretap program.
Criminologists will tell you that the reason street crime is down in the U.S. is because of proactive policing methods such as were instituted in New York by Rudy Giuliani and William Bratton. A reactive police force by definition lets crime happen and investigates afterward. Our bitter, give-no-quarter politics is going to leave us with a reactive, uncertain national security apparatus.
Even allowing for election needs, why is it not possible for the congressional Democratic Party and its Amen corner in the punditocracy and blogosphere to overcome their George Bush phobia here? They should allow the creation of a civil-liberties regime that will genuinely (not hopefully) reduce our exposure to the risks now being rolled up by the surveillance and arrests in London.
The foiling of the plot in Britain was a kind of public-policy miracle, a rare chance to rethink. The U.S. could have spent the past week with 4,000 funerals. We would have had calls for measures so stringent and draconian they would make the Bush program look like pattycake. We have none of that. But unless our politics changes, we will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's worth noting the judge who made the ruling brought up the "this is not a hereditary monarchy" thing. Whether the ruling was good thing or not aside, it's been my experience that just about everybody who brings heredity regarding Bush was pretty anti-Bush from the start, as these are almost always the same people that think he rigged the electionin some form or another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's worth noting the judge who made the ruling brought up the "this is not a hereditary monarchy" thing. Whether the ruling was good thing or not aside, it's been my experience that just about everybody who brings heredity regarding Bush was pretty anti-Bush from the start, as these are almost always the same people that think he rigged the electionin some form or another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn Democrats
Bush isn't running a police state, they are so clouded by their hatred for the opponent - they can't choose what is good for Americans and ultimatley the whole world.
I can't care about freedom if I was blown up in a plane.
I'm not going to thankful for the freedom when I'm six feet under, I might be thankful for the security when terrorists are caught and I get safely from airport to airport.
How on earth does the NSA wiretapping affect anybody in their day to day lives? Unless we all talk to international terrorists daily?
Notice the only journalists complaining are from the left-wing hate-America news organizations, typical New York Times - killing Americans and people from everywhere in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting article in todays Journal
The Constitution is the single unifying ideal and identifier for the United States of America. Our very name is taken for granted anymore-- we are a collection of states with different ideals and goals, but united under one central collection of laws. When we decide to let men with beards living in caves halfway around the world frighten us into weakening and violating those laws, we are reduced. So get on that airplane, go to that Statue of Liberty, or pet that goat at the zoo in Indiana. That's how you fight terror.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Telco's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Telco's add
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the problem with government
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Damn Democrats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Telco's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Telco's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets take a look at our history. Seems to me I remember reading about citizens being put in internment camps during WWII, I remember reporters not being able to write about certain things, I remember the govt. being a whole lot more restrictive in times of danger. Somehow when the times changed, the govt. changed.
Rights and their restrictions ebb and flow, the Wall Street Journal article just states that maybe some in the country don't really care about protecting the US, they are just concerned with getting elected.
A very good point was made that if 4,000 people were actually killed in the foiled plot, what do you thing Congress would be calling for to protect us? Think they would be calling for Bush's head? Think they would ask the NSA to do more, ask the FBI to do more?
If we place more and more restrictions on intelligence gathering, maybe they will get their wish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Telco's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What, don't want to give up your right to bear arms? That's my point. You shouldn't have to.
BTW, WWII internment camps-- how do we look back on that just 60 years later. Heck, how did we look back on it 10 years after? With revulsion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for the warrents, who knows what they did over there, I know someone got inside their organization. Wonder if that could happen here, would a court allow a FBI agent to target a Mosque here?
Lets see here, so the NSA, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies can't search through traffic, but AOL can accidently release search information that identifies people? Google can profit based off of your emails and searches? Other companies can sell your personal information to anyone that is willing to pay?
How does that make sense? Maybe it would be ok for the FBI to just buy the data from Verizon and AT&T, would that make it OK? (Well, actually the govt. does have to pay the provider for access, but thats another story.)
I believe the main issue is that the survelience that the govt. has done has always been done, but that political opponents of GWB has jumped on this to attack him. They don't care about safety, rights or anything else, they are using this for political gain. I don't know if I like people playing politics when it comes to safety.
If you ask the American (like a recent Harris Poll did) they don't mind what the NSA was doing. The majority was in favor of it. Lets not loose perspective of what is actually going on in this country. I know, we are all sheep, but maybe its others that is out of touch with reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A "majority" of people were outraged by this and it has yet to be deployed. As you point out, the "majority" of people are okay with the NSA program. Logically, many of the same people okay with warrantless wiretapping were not even willing to sacrifice their own modesty (to a lesser extent of a routine physical) to improve the safety of flying. So until you and Bob Jones feel like revealing your true selves to airport screeners, don't lecture the rest of us about making sacrifices for safety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I watched the towers fall 5 years ago, I spent 8 hours trying to get out of NYC. Maybe people in other parts of the country don't see the danger, but I had friends and compadres killed in the barracks in Beruit. I do have a fear of the terrorists, because I know what they can do. Do I live in fear? No. but I also don't believe in being stupid.
Life may not have been fair for the terrorist (or freedom fighter, which ever label you wish) maybe we did screw them over in the past, maybe we did hurt them. Whatever, I still don't want them to be able to kill Americans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Regardless, the principles guaranteed by the Constitution are not free. We cannot enjoy them without understanding that from time to time they may not allow us to take certain steps to convict a killer or protect someone from a terrorist. Freedom isn't free--living free has risks. I'm willing to accept those risks to protect our freedoms. It seems that you are not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should people expect privacy over non public internets? Do I mind that the NSA looks at who I talk too? No, and I don't think it violates my rights.
I trust politicians, but maybe for a different reason. Few would make decisions that are needed here. Strong medicine is needed to fix things, but we won't stand for such action. Too bad, because from healthcare to education to defense to immigration, we need to start making hard decisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting article in todays Journal
Your post does have many valid points but some of the statements ( especially "The U.S. could have spent the past week with 4,000 funerals.") are just FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Interesting article in todays Journal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It will never happen as long as there are election campaigns every two or four years. Nothing is more important to a career politician than reelection and campaign donations. Politicians need to please the people with money so they can make more money. They need to please special interest groups. The issues affecting average folks are not important. There is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat any more. It's all about power and money now.
I don't see any reason to trust politicians. The system is FUBAR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Finally some sense enters our planet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a very simple solution!
My personal opinion is that Bush chose not to streamline the FISA approval process, and instead circumvent it, because they are listening in on things that they know they couldn't justify under the scrutiny of a judge. Hell, the fact that they could submit warrant requests after the fact should have even the most right wing person asking why they didn't? It just makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]