Tech Companies Lawsuit Over Transparency Concerning NSA Surveillance Put On Hold Due To Government Shutdown
from the please-hold... dept
This is hardly a surprise, but it appears that the tech companies' lawsuit against the federal government, in which they're arguing a First Amendment right to reveal details (at least in terms of numbers) related to NSA information requests, has been put on hold. The DOJ told the court that the government shutdown means that its lawyers really can't work on the case and the Court has agreed to put the case on hold until the government is up and running again. It has also told the feds to declassify yet another court ruling concerning the interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, though it will let that wait until after the government opens up again too.
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
Filed Under: first amendment, government shutdown, nsa, nsa surveillance, transparency
Companies: dropbox, google, linkedin, microsoft, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"This is hardly a surprise,"
This one is actually indirectly defending Google and its pretense of going to court to protest NSA just enough to be allowed to post some numbers that We The People can't check, anyway. It's all PR.
Techdirt's official motto: This isn't surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is hardly a surprise,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "This is hardly a surprise,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This is hardly a surprise,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is hardly a surprise,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A luxury only for the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A luxury only for the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no rush, it will drag for years.
Although it seems unfair, after all any other plaintiff would have a default judgement against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One could dream.
I wonder if the courts would stay closed if all those tech companies broke their gag orders right now.
As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:16:42 PM
shape nest album seaweed pocket garden worm factory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign of corruption
If the government is prosecuting and shuts down then defense walks free and case dismissed with prejudice.
If the government is defending and shuts down, then the court assumes a "No Contest" by defense and proceeds to remediation/sentencing/ruling phase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MI5 scaremongering
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596
A few things of note about this. He's making the scaremongering appeal direct to public bypassing the usual government and Parliament front men. This, no doubt, is connected to the revelation that it wasn't only the Parliament (like Congress) that weren't told, it was also the Cabinet (like the Executive branch).
Also this was interesting, a denial in the form of a confession:
"Former GCHQ Director Sir David Omand: "Nobody is reading ALL your emails""
All? [Handler slaps palm to forehead]
And this
"Being on our radar does not necessarily mean being under our microscope," he said."
Confirming domestic surveillance.
Interesting times, I wonder if any of you in GCHQ can see what you've done. Sure you might think you're chasing terrorists, but actually you've empowered people three pay grades above you to spy on political activists (i.e. every future politician), and worse, you've done it for a foreign agency whose remit is to manipulate foreign governments.
You've put democracy at risk, already Britain is more like Stasi controlled east europe. Why did you do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]