EFF, ACLU sue over wiretapping law
Yee-HAW! EFF, the ACLU and others are suing the government -- in multiple suits! -- over the new spy bill that "legalizes" warrantless bulk surveillance and immunizes the telcos from civil prosecution for their past bad deeds in cooperating with the President in wiretapping the whole nation.
The ACLU contends those blanket powers to grab international communications of Americans without specific court orders violate the Fourth Amendment and would stymie journalists who often speak to confidential sources outside the country.Go, go civil libertarians! You've just earned my annual donation, and I'm upping the amount next year. Have you joined yet? These are the folks who are keeping the Constitution intact even as "our guys" in Congress tear it up in the name of political expedience and assuaging right-wing talk-show hosts who aren't going to vote for them, anyway. Link, Link to donate to EFF, Link to donate to ACLUPlaintiff Naomi Klein, the liberal columnist and author, said the surveillance would compromise her writing about international issues.
"If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," Klein said.
See also:
Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"
Senate approves warrantless wiretapping and telco immunity, throws out the Fourth Amendment
the latest
latest episodes
Lucky for us, Obama might get to replace at least one of the "Horsemen" on the Supreme Court before you "pinkos" (bless you!) get there.
Yay!
I'm torn on the ACLU. They're quick to defend the "civil liberties" of the 1st amendment, and the 4th, but have always been very noticeably silent in the defense of the civil liberties guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment. (In fact, their position is entirely counter to the Constitution:
"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
I'm sorry, but if they're going to tout themselves as all for civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, you don't get to pick and choose which liberties you like and which ones are the red-headed-stepchildren you wish weren't there.
If the ACLU would stop being hypocritical, they would get a literal raft of cash from me each year. Instead, eh, not so much.
A proud member of EFF for years.
That's nice. And which congressmen are going to jail for this violation of the law?
Hh. slly t's frst mndmnt st tht dfnds th fndmntl rght f n wfl prsn t spt ffnsv nnsns.
Dballing,
Do you have the same qualms about the NRA, which, so far as I know is silent on the cruel and unusual punishment statute? What is their position on the due process rulings regarding Guantanamo?
Is it a failing of organizations focused on voting-rights that they don't also support gun ownership or Nazi protesters?
What you describe isn't hypocrisy, it's called a DISAGREEMENT. They disagree with you on 1) the interpretation of the second amendment and 2) on the importance of unrestricted gun ownership as a right of citizens in a free society.
But since they don't do any advocacy at all against gun rights, and since you say you agree with them on the issues that they do engage in advocacy over, then it's a bit strange that you're so reticent to support them.
The complaint is at http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/faa_complaint_20080710.pdf
Obama will have to do a lot for me to overlook this atrocity which he not only voted for, but which he voted for cloture for (essentially, the exact opposite of the filibuster he had promised).
However, he is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the FISA bill than would McCain. Considering the current composition of the SCOTUS, we can ill afford more young conservative judges who would advance the surveillance state and hold back social progress for decades to come.
I was hoping for once this would be more than a lesser of two evils election... *sigh*
Let's not make this about gun control. Please keep it on topic.
Politics is always about choosing the lesser of two evils. That is it's very nature. How long before a suit like this even reaches the SCOTUS? A couple of years?
@#5
"That's nice. And which congressmen are going to jail for this violation of the law?"
You can take all the ones who were in favor of the Military Commission Acts of 2006 and supported the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Morally not the best thing to do, but the Irony would be golden.
We need to restock Congress anyways, might as well make room.
#3 "...the red-headed-stepchildren you wish weren't there."
Don't you mean red-necked?
#10: "Politics is always about choosing the lesser of two evils."
Yeah, but wouldn't it be cool to have an election about choosing the greater of two goods? Sigh.
yay! where do i sign up?
@#12 - #3 meant red-headed-stepchildren. S/he's expressing anti-gingerism.
While I support the ACLU and EFF's efforts in this matter, I'm having trouble believing it won't be all for nothing.
This lawsuit will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court - a Supreme Court which recently upheld the 800-year legal tradition of habeas corpus by One Vote.
That's the real Bush legacy staring us in the face right now: 30 years of future court decisions made by people who really, truly, simply don't believe in the core values that have defined the United States since its inception.
Now the EFF and local ACLU affiliate groups are going to bring a lawsuit before a court which is authoritarian and antagonist towards free-speech and personal-liberty.
I'm not hopeful justice will prevail.
-S
Let's not forget that there's a concerted effort among a certain segment of the Right, conservative media, etc., to destroy the ACLU. Any given day you can tune in AM radio and here how the ACLU is trying to destroy America, how they're commies or worse, etc etc. This gives some insight into how hostile those people are to our Consitution, our way of life, our freedoms.
God Bless the ACLU. Because I have to good fortune of living in a country that STILL has a fair amount of liberty even with the best efforts of the Bush Administration and their captive media stooges, because I have the good fortune of having a few dollars left over at the end of the month, I'm sending the ACLU a donation right now. I bet there's a lot of us who can part with a tenner or twenty bucks for an outfit that's been standing up to tyrants for decades.
and that, el Poppo, is a very smart thing to say
So, I'm a member and frequent contributor to EFF, and I'm interested in donating to the ACLU, as well. I am not interested in actually becoming a card-carrying member of the ACLU because I don't want my name associated with the authoritarian sentiments behind their Second Amendment position. But I'd like to help out with their work on FISA suits and, frankly, pretty much everything else they stand for.
The trouble is, I've heard from friends who've also donated to the ACLU that they basically devote your first donation towards spamming you via snail mail for the rest of your life, trying to get further donations out of you. They also apparently sell their mailing lists to other charities. This is a pretty big turnoff for me. Maybe some people in this thread can address these objections -- is this stuff true? I'd like to hear, "No, they used to do that, but they don't anymore," or "Your friends are mistaken, the ACLU only sends out one further appeal for donations every year, and it comes in a recycled envelope."
Noapoah #6 -- It's OK to disagree with the other commenters, but please don't insult them, or accuse them of posting nonsense when they aren't.
Man on Pink Corner #19 -- Yes, the ACLU will send you snail-mail donation requests more often than once a year. I don't know about selling their lists to other charities; I haven't noticed a dramatic increase in new requests since I joined.
#3: If the ACLU would stop being hypocritical, they would get a literal raft of cash from me each year. Instead, eh, not so much.
Yes, same here. Regardless of whether you're into the whole gun thing, the idea that the right to self-defense is not among an individual's most fundamental civil liberties is beyond absurd.
The ACLU's (mostly hidden) page on gun control used to cite Miller as a key reason for their position. Funny, they don't seem loath to disagree with the Supreme Court in any number of other areas.... what was so special about Miller? Then the Heller decision came down, and the ACLU tripped over their own shoelaces in their haste to prove my point.
#7: The NRA does not claim to be an organization dedicated to the defense of the entire Bill of Rights and civil liberties in general. The ACLU does.
The NRA's name contains the word "Rifle." The ACLU's name contains the term "Civil Liberties." That lets the NRA off the hook, as far as the other amendments are concerned.
#20: That's good to hear, depending on just what "more often than once a year" means. :)
#19
Cool. Send your donation anonymously with your stated complaint; somebody may listen.
When I was with the ACLU, we lost members over defending First Amendment rights of people or groups they disagreed with. I mean,you've really got to be a believer to defend Nazis, as we did on a few occasions; but if the Constitution isn't for EVERYBODY, then it's for nobody. You may love what the ACLU does today, but you may hate what they do tomorrow.
To follow up later in the day:
#10: You're right, the debate isn't about gun control at all, it's about the rights guaranteed in the Constitution's aptly-named "Bill of Rights".
#19: As someone who donated once, before I realized fully their anti-gun stance, I can wholeheartedly confirm that... I haven't given them money in years, but they keep sending me letters begging for cash, and have done so almost since the moment my donation cleared.
#21: Exactly. The NRA doesn't claim to defend "civil rights", they claim to (and do a moderately decent job of, although they could take some cues from the JPFO) defending those gun rights. The ACLU claims to protect "Civil Liberties", but gun rights ARE a civil liberty, one which they wish wasn't around, so they refuse to defend it.
#22: They'll still use it, partly, to support their anti-gun stance, which some of us can't stomach. Your quote though is kind of ironic. "If the Constitution isn't for EVERYBODY, then it's for NOBODY".... right, that's true but why then ignore parts of the constitution that they disagree with? That's the part many of us "true" civil libertarians call "hypocritical" :-)
This entry has nothing to do with the right to bear arms or the NRA. Thus, those posts are off-topic and inflammatory. Please read the Moderation Policy if you have any further questions.
#22: They'll still use it, partly, to support their anti-gun stance, which some of us can't stomach. Your quote though is kind of ironic. "If the Constitution isn't for EVERYBODY, then it's for NOBODY".... right, that's true but why then ignore parts of the constitution that they disagree with? That's the part many of us "true" civil libertarians call "hypocritical"
Yeah, I know how you feel. I pay my federal taxes and the government uses some of it, partly, to wage an adventuristic war which some of us can't stomach. Pisses me off. Maybe I won't give them any more. If the ACLU pisses you off, then don't send them any money.
That's not a "quote;" I think I made it up. Glad you like it.
so I guess that rather than employ elaborate codes, cyphers and advanced encryption, all our enemies would need to do to keep there communications from being monitored would be to "conference in" an American citizen were this suit to be won by the ACLU/EFF...
Great.
So when the government declines to be sued, what then?
Sure, it's a stretch that it will do anything to sue, but it's better than doing nothing. The ACLU has never sold my info to any other non-profits, charities or SPAMMERs, which is more than I can say about the phone company or even most car dealerships. The ACLU does support the whole Bill of Rights, just not the NRA's stance that this means you should have the right to possess assault rifles and other arms that have no hunting value and are way more than what people in a civilized society should have access to for "personal defense." Just as has been expressed previously and repeatedly in this thread, let's not devolve into a gun control debate, though I took a moment to answer some misinterpretations expressed by some. Why don't you get the facts from the ACLU and not the NRA (who are not unbiased) before spouting off here, on a thread about FISA and the aftermath of this unconstitutional bill passing. Thank you.
@26: As if your point weren't moronic enough to begin with, it's scarcely even intelligible. Learn how to write.
Most of us crazy leftist extremists have no problem monitoring the communications of "our enemies"--which apparently means anyone who doesn't live in the US now--so long as it is done under the framework of law, consistently with the Constitution.
How hard is it to understand the difference between surveillance with warrants (which, in an emergency situation, could even be approved days after the surveillance took place) and illegal, unconstitutional surveillance?
It seems quite likely Obama will win the presidency. What if he starts using this warrantless surveillance power to eavesdrop on the NRA or the RNC or some other powerful conservative group, in order to blackmail them or whatever? What would stop him from doing so?
Whoops! Have we forgotten that our preferred politicians aren't always in power? Perhaps checks and balances is a good idea after all?
The founders were wise enough to realize that human beings have a tendency to abuse power if held unaccountable. What has happened to us that this idea is now considered radical?
Manners, please.
i made a t-shirt
RIP
4th Amendment
1791-2008
http://www.cafepress.com/RIP4th
Whereas Burned1000 has never try to sell anything here before, and they are on topic, I regard the tee-shirts as an art project rather than a commercial venture. Feel free to flag it for Teresa if you're concerned.
A direct link to the thong would have been better though.
there's a thong??!!
I think the whole issue behind the "need" for warrantless wiretaps in the first place is the fact that pens have a nasty habit of growing legs and walking away. "Who took my pen?!? How can I be expected to fill out a wiretap warrant if I don't have a pen? Johnson... stay outtta my cube!" Or maybe the wire-tappers always wait until after the last minute to submit their warrant paperwork?
Seems to me that a lack of good office skills isn't enough of a reason to toss an amendment.
@36: I'm a bit confused here. I don't see how the US has the physical capacity to wiretap any conversation that takes place anywhere in the world. Unless a communication is passing through an American telco company, I don't see how they'd have access to it. They don't have the jurisdiction to demand that foreign companies let them filter all of their communications.
If that's the case, then including an American citizen in a conversation (assuming that meant that the conversation would then have to pass through the US) would be a foolish risk, giving the government a possibility to listen in that they otherwise wouldn't have, even if there were legal restraints on what listening they could do.
Perhaps I'm wrong on the details here, but in any case it does nothing to invalidate my point about the possibility of retroactive warrants. If there isn't time to go through the paperwork right away, they had a few days to do it after the fact. I don't see why that is asking so much.
My point about Obama was a hypothetical one. Do I think he would do things like that? No. But why take chances? If it's not him, it could be some future leader. Some minimal accountability, some sort of check by a different branch of government, is all that I'm asking. The FISA Court itself was already practically a rubber stamp, but they did turn down some requests (about half a dozen, I think, out of thousands), which means they may have been preventing the most flagrant abuses of power.
I'm skeptical that the point you're raising is a legitimate concern, but I lack the technical knowledge to refute it conclusively. Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about the details might weigh in here? I tend to get a lot of my information from Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer who is extremely well-informed on the subject, but he is not exactly a neutral source.
RE: #38 posted by Spinobobot:
The US Government has the ability and the mandate to monitor communications in various forms around the globe to ensure domestic security, and does so either independent of, or in concert with, various foreign goverments. The earlier version of this exercise was called Project ECHELON not sure what it is called now... If you don't like Wikipedia citations, now you have the name and you can google it for further enlightenment...
You can find a few, precious geeky details here.
I hope the above helps.
RE: #38 posted by Spinobobot:
To continue, you said:
As noted in #39 (above), the Government can "listen" to any conversations (no matter the format) in almost any location, and if I'm following the argument correctly, the U.S. citizen that they could (theoretically) "conference in" need not be on U.S. soil to have the same effect (a U.S. citizen in a foreign land is afforded the same protections from the U.S. government, same as if they were on U.S. Soil - of course, the foreign government is not bound by our government and it's laws and doctrines ;^).
I always find it funny when people argue for oversight (FISA court, in this case) and to convince others of the need the first thing they say is something along the lines of "they'll just rubber stamp your requests - you can even request the warrant after the fact" rendering the usefulness of the oversight in doubt. If they'll approve nearly every request, what is their function/value-add? The appearance of oversight without any real, perceptible oversight is not what you want - it's not what I want - so why offer it? I don't want the appearance of propriety, I want propriety.
Ok, I'll say it again. "This episode of BBtv is brought to you by Verizon". Am I the only one catching the irony here? Boing Boing, I have continued to visit your happy home here despite my reservations about your logic and the repeated thrashing you are getting all over internetland. The problem here is that it seems to others that you may have some kind of blinders on that makes your vision of yourselves as providers of nifty-ness and the occasional blast of internet moral outrage a bit lacking in cred. Just a heads-up ok?
and what does it cost you beyond your time to graze here and bitch here? Want the advertising to go away? Send money. We don't all still live at home.
WoeToHice,
Oh my god! Nobody else ever noticed that before!
BTW, we didn't get your check this month.
KEN @40: This point is that, with oversight this relaxed, what was the need to go around it? Apparently it wasn't enough for this administration to have only the most flagrant of abuses disallowed. They want to blanket eavesdrop on all americans. If this doesn't worry you, then you weren't appreciating your civil rights anyway, so I guess won't you miss them. Yes, it would be nice to have more oversight, but that doesn't mean the ground we just lost has no meaning or discernible difference.
WOETOHICE @41: You should be glad that BoingBoing doesn't censor its content based on its advertisers, unlike 99.99% of TV, Radio, and printed media in this country. And there is far more intrusive ad presence on most of the content providing websites out there too. (You can scroll past the verizon ads on BBTV, you know, and rollovers don't jump out at you from the margins or from text links here, or add sound or run video.) Be thankful for what you've got, while you still have it.
WoeToHice asked me to tell you:
"The Czech's in the male."
ACLU=Bob Barr=not for me!
When they made money more important than truth, they lost me. sorry
Antinous it seems like you could be interpreted as saying "Our stupid readers wont pay us so that leaves the (Verizon)bad guys, Oh well, those readers might notice but surely they don't care." If BB doesn't bother to even appear to have integrity, how can we take what you say seriously when it comes to serious (wiretapping)issues. That's all. It matters to some people.
no, it can't be interpreted that way. Save by the malicious or stupid.
WoeToHice,
Your whole comment history is about Verizon ads. Did you have a bad experience with Verizon? Because you seem to be on a mission.
@Ken Hansen: The government has always had the ability to wiretap via the FISA court. The law required the FISA court to issue a warrant to government officials wishing to place a wiretap on any line. They were even allowed to wiretap without a warrant in emergency situations, so long as they did apply for a warrant within the allowed grace period (7 days?). So even when they were trying to catch "our enemies," they could still do so within the law. The President decided to sidestep the law and blanket wiretap communications without obtaining a warrant.
To top it all off, according to a former NSA agent who was interviewed by NPR, the wiretaps resulted in only one possible arrest. I'm trying to find that interview on their site.
Sorry Ant. It was just that I read through the EFF documents on the wiretapping issue and it coincided with all the trash talk about BBs moderation "issues". I read BB daily, link to it on my blog regularly, and basically appreciate the thing you do here. I seem to have to defend this opinion elsewhere sadly though. It is totally wacky to be talking about integrity on the internet I realize.