Administration Succeeds In Delaying The Release Of Telco Lobbying On Immunity

from the transparency-is-good-in-theory... dept

So much for that new Obama administration "transparency" claim, huh? After three unsuccessful attempts at stalling a court order to release documents concerning who lobbied for telco immunity in warrantless wiretapping lawsuits, the administration has succeeded in its fourth attempt, delaying the release of the documents at least until next year. Of course, by the time this is decided, it should be long after Congress is done debating the whole warrantless wiretapping issue... so that's convenient. I'm still trying to figure out who or what the administration is trying to shield. It seems pretty obvious that the telcos would lobby for immunity, so that's not revealing much. So what's so important to keep secret?

Filed Under: immunity, obama administration, telcos, transparency, warrantless wiretapping

Gov't Trying Everything Possible Not To Give Up Telco Immunity Lobbying Records

from the not-so-transparent dept

Remember last month, when a court ordered the Obama administration to turn over records of who lobbied the administration for retroactive immunity for telcos concerning the warrantless wiretapping program? Yeah... well, it turns out the Obama administration isn't so keen on actually living up to that. First, it asked for a 60 day delay, so it could think about appealing (i.e., "give us time to stall, since telco immunity is being debated in Congress now, and we don't want this info out until afterwards"). However, the court said no, and said to hand over the info. And... yet again, the administration has now filed an emergency motion asking for 30 days to consider an appeal. It's difficult to see what this is other than a pure stall tactic. If the court already rejected the 60 day delay, why would it now turn around and grant a 30 day delay. All this is really serving to do is make people a lot more suspicious about what those records might show.

Filed Under: immunity, lobbying, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

Senators Look To Remove Telco Retroactive Immunity For Warrantless Wiretaps

from the no-get-out-of-jail-free-card dept

Even as the Obama administration is still supporting immunity for the telcos who gave the gov't wiretap info without any warrants, a group of Senators has now introduced legislation that would repeal the immunity. The simplest explanation for this:

"Congress should not have short-circuited the courts' constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program."

Indeed. If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that. If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

Gov't Needs To Reveal Who Lobbied For Telco Immunity On Warrantless Wiretaps

from the this-shouldn't-be-a-surprise dept

The EFF has announced that a judge has sided with them in saying the federal government must reveal the records of who lobbied to get telco immunity from any warrantless wiretapping charges in last year's FISA bill. There is simply no credible explanation for granting telco immunity except to cover up illegal activity. It's a clear "get out of jail free" card. Still, I doubt that the lobbying records will turn up very much surprising. I'm sure the big telcos lobbied for it, as you would have expected.

Filed Under: immunity, lobbying, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

As Expected, Judge Dismisses Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuits Against Telcos

from the it's-the-law... dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but a judge has tossed out the ACLU and the EFF's various lawsuits against telcos for enabling warrantless wiretapping for the government. The reason it isn't a huge surprise is that the gov't last year, in a well publicized move, granted the telcos immunity from prosecution, and the judge basically pointed that out in dismissing the case. Instead, the judge said that if these groups have a complaint, it's with the gov't for granting immunity (not to worry, there are lawsuits against the gov't as well). Not surprisingly, the EFF and ACLU are appealing. Still, it does seem like these lawsuits are a longshot, even if it's disappointing. It seems ridiculous that the gov't can grant widespread immunity to a company for potentially breaking the law -- but, again, it seems that's an issue to take up with the government -- and once that's solved, go back and deal with the companies specifically. The judge's job is to interpret the law, and in this case, the law says that the telcos are immune. Now, if you believe (as I do) that such a law is ridiculous and should be seen as unconstitutional, than the issue is to take it up with the government. So, the judge's ruling makes sense, even if it's disappointing to see telcos potentially get off the hook for violating customer privacy rights.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping
Companies: aclu, at&t, eff, verizon

Judge Slams Administration For Ignoring Orders In Warrantless Wiretapping Case

from the new-administration,-same-story dept

We've covered the Al-Haramain case for a while, as it's the one case where there's actual evidence of a party being the subject of warrantless wiretaps by the administration. So far, the judge has continued to allow the case to go forward despite objections from both the previous administration and the current one. On Friday, the judge in the case got angry enough to scold the administration for failing to obey court orders related to the case and continuing to make arguments that had already been rejected. As such, the judge appears to be considering a sanction prohibiting the government from opposing liability for such warrantless wiretaps. This whole situation continues to baffle me. There's absolutely no reason why the federal government should need a warrantless wiretap, unless it knows that it has no probable cause and simply wants to spy on people for the sake of spying. If it had a real reason to wiretap, it could get a warrant. If it was urgent, wiretap laws have given the government a window to ask for a warrant immediately after setting up the wiretap. There's no reasonable explanation for denying the basic checks and balances to avoid abuse, and it's disappointing that both administrations have continued to try to avoid any discussion over the matter, and are improperly framing it as a matter of national security for which they don't need to answer.

Filed Under: obama administration, warrantless wiretapping

EFF: Obama DOJ's Warrantless Wiretapping Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

from the wow dept

On the issue of warrantless wiretapping, we've never been given a clear explanation by anyone why it makes sense to allow the government to totally skip over the warrant process. The warrant process is there for a clear reason: to prevent abusive power by the government. No one is saying that the government can't issue wiretaps. They just want the gov't to get it reviewed and approved by a court. And, there isn't even an issue of urgency, since the government has the right, in extreme cases, to wiretap first, and get the warrant soon after. Many people hoped that with the Obama administration, things would change, and we'd finally move away from the warrantless wiretapping program, which by any basic definition, violates the 4th Amendment.

Apparently not. The EFF has an analysis of the new Justice Department in trying to get one of the warrantless wiretapping cases dismissed, noting that the new administration appears to be taking an even more extreme position than the previous administration (which was already quite extreme). Basically, the motion to dismiss claims that the government "is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying -- that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes." It's difficult to see how anyone could square that with the 4th Amendment, and hopefully the court will suggest the Administration's top lawyers reread the Constitution.

Filed Under: doj, obama, warrantless wiretapping
Companies: eff