Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EFF Sues NSA, President Bush, and VP Cheney

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the aw-heck-why-not dept.

The Courts 267

VisualE writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Big (1, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057457)

Wow, that's... big.
How many trial did the EFF lose ? IIRC, they are usually fierce and study their cases carefully before going to court, am I wrong ?

Re:Big (3, Interesting)

lwap0 (866326) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057531)

Is this lawsuit any different from the ACLU one though? They seem to be covering the same ground.

Re:Big (4, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057975)

This time, they have much more documentation. All of these smaller suits, and some bigger ones, were basically just a way to compel the needed evidence to bring a strong case.

Re:Big (2, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057539)

How many trial did the EFF lose ?

Plenty.

Re:Big (4, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057825)

That's just what they want you to think.

Either way, they're pretty tenacious and well known, they may even have as much or more public recognition by now than the ACLU.

Even if they lose this one (or don't entirely get their case), they'll still win. They've backed up some significant cases and have become well known for it, and this will only make them more popular.

In some eyes, the EFF, for what they stand for, may never be wrong, and they could quickly turn into a religion of legal sorts. Especially considering that the targets, the "general unpopular undoers of society", have already had sights set on them many times and even though the law assumes they're in the right or not so in the wrong, they're pariahs and nothing they can do can prove to the people they're not bad guys.

There's a lot of 'little guys' that have gotten hurt by the unfairness of the law when they're weighed against corporations, and it's really building up. The EFF could be one of many outlets for a meta-ideology when people really do start fighting back.

Anyways, I'm just saying this so I can say "Holy shit, I was right?!" later if it really turns out that way.

Re:Big (5, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057901)

They don't have anywhere near the recognition outside of the IT industry that the ACLU has.

Most of what you wrote about the EFF applies to the ACLU, also.

If they are redundantly making a case, they ought to be careful about it - the ACLU and EFF should certainly be cooperative towards each other, IMO.

Re:Big (4, Funny)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058053)

It'll be SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY! Check out this tag team battle of the century as the EFF and the ACLU take on the NSA and The Bush Administration in this BATTLE TO THE DEATHHHHHHHHH! EXTREME action! Blood, violence, lawyers TO THE MAX!

ONLY ON PAY PER VIEW!

Re:Big (5, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058339)

"ONLY ON PAY PER VIEW!"

Nah. I'll just wait until someone puts up the DivX torrent on Pirate Bay.

Re:Big (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058063)

they're pretty tenacious and well known, they may even have as much or more public recognition by now than the ACLU.

Listen Brah... take off your nerd hat for a moment, doubtful they are more recognized than the ACLU.

On a similar note, my mom loves OSX and doesn't know or give a fuck about Linux. Get what I'm saying...??

Re:Big (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058093)

Yah brah. You know, I see you talk a lot on here, AC. Sometimes you're a little less polite than that, though. I don't know if I should add you as a friend or an enemy!

Re:Big (4, Informative)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058271)

Either way, they're pretty tenacious and well known, they may even have as much or more public recognition by now than the ACLU.

Hint: Go OUTSIDE into the light son. Outside... Just once in a while. Ask people (real people, not people on /. or IRC) if they even know who the EFF is. Ask them if they know who the ACLU is. Seeing as you'll be doing this you might want to bring along a flyer or someting so you can explain what Linux is, what open source is, and then explain what the word freedom means to those people. It'll be good for you. You might even get a tan.

Re:Big (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057903)

Oh look, someone who reads Andrew Orlowski articles. There are two things you should be aware of when you read one of his pieces:
  1. He almost never checks his 'facts'.
  2. You are wasting time that could be more productively spent banging your head against your desk.

There's a nice long list of cases they won [eff.org] , but somehow the fact that Orlowski cited half a dozen where they'd lost (including at least one where they'd dropped the case because they'd won a victory in a related case that made it irrelevant) started the meme that they always lose.

Re:Big (2, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058169)

Oh look, someone who reads Andrew Orlowski articles.

Oh look, someone who jumps to conclusions. You seem to be disagreeing with my simple factual statement that the EFF has lost a lot of cases. Any evidence to back this up?

There's a nice long list of cases they won

First of all, that nice long list of cases does not disprove my assertion, that they lost plenty of cases. That list doesn't have their losses I notice.

Secondly, in several of those cases the EFF's role was to file an amicus curiae briefs. As an attorney I would never be so grasping as to consider a case I filed such a brief in as a "win." Who knows whether the judge even read them.

Thirdly I am unfamiliar with this Andrew Orlowsky person you mention. All I'm sure of on the subject is that I am not him.

Re:Big (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058391)

First of all, that nice long list of cases does not disprove my assertion, that they lost plenty of cases.

Don't be throwin stones from your glass house - your assertion of the unnumbered 'plenty' aint shit without a cite.
At least he did better in one post than you have in two.

That list doesn't have their losses I notice.

Ah, so it is up to him to prove your point too? No wonder lawyers have such a piss poor rep.

DONUT??? (5, Informative)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057623)

If you were ever planning to donate to the EFF at all, now might be a good time.

http://www.eff.org/support/ [eff.org]

Re:DONUT??? (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058041)

Hey, you trick me! You said Donut in the title.

Re:DONUT??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058195)

Homer, is that you?

Re:DONUT??? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058247)

Note to Moderators: Posts relatating to donuts of any type are always on topic. Please adjust your crullers accordingly.

Re:DONUT??? (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058317)

Off topic, sure... But if you'd just said "MARGE!!!" at the end you'd have been funnier. I, at least, immediately thought of Homer when I read that.

Mod Parent Up (3, Interesting)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058211)

We have an ever increasing need for a reputable organisation such as the EFF fighting our corner. Governments and corporations have woken up to the digital revolution, and they all want their piece of the pie - often at our expense. They are one of the few organisations I donate monthly to, and I'm not even a US citizen / resident. They really do try and make a difference online and as evidenced by this story, there are no opponents too rich or powerful for them to take a stand against.

... Also, they gave me a "free" t-shirt. \o/

Re:DONUT??? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058403)

I've been meaning to donnate to the EFF for some time now, but this finally made me get off my ass and do it.

In the field asking why I was donating I wrote, "fear".

Re:Big [waste of time] (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057939)

Didn't congress aprove a law that actually give the dictators in place immunity for this sort of things?

Re:Big [waste of time] (3, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058001)

No, they gave the telcos (AT&T, etc.) immunity.

Re:Big (5, Informative)

btempleton (149110) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058245)

The EFF does not of course always win, but it does frequently and has effected quite a bit of change to bad law as a result.

http://www.eff.org/victories/ [eff.org]

Outlines just some of the major victories.

The EFF also sometimes engages in cases where probability of victory is lower, but we judge that the case must be fought, and that public benefit will come just from the fighting, and the hearing of evidence in open court. Of course we hope to win, but we also know that even if we don't win, there are other upsides.

This case (and the case vs. AT&T) get much of their benefit simply by having a court examine this illegal wiretapping program. Part of our message is that this program has not been subject to review by the courts, and that in of itself is bad.

The ACLU won early victory but fell down due to standing. We have well established evidence of massive interception of traffic. While some might think there is only an illegal wiretap if the government listens to you, it is unlawful for them to even intercept your communications, even if they toss them away later. Warrants must name specific targets, and it is the job of phone companies to isolate the traffic of targets and hand it over under lawful warrants. The government does not get to just intercept all the traffic and pull out what it desires.

Tenshi Goei (2)

Tenshi Goei (1325909) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057459)

About time...

Bush needs to hire (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057467)

Ray Beckerman!

*DUCKS* :)

THIS JUST IN! EFF WINS! AWARDED . . . (1, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057491)

. . . a 5% stake in A.I.G. in compensation.

Re:THIS JUST IN! EFF WINS! AWARDED . . . (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057817)

. . . a 5% stake in A.I.G. in compensation.

Take it back! Take it back!

Re:THIS JUST IN! EFF WINS! AWARDED . . . (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058513)

I'd kill for a 5% stake in AIG right now. With the government backing an 85 billion dollar loan to AIG, most of their business still being successful (including a 20-50 billion dollar airline business), there's a good chance that the government is going to make a profit on this transaction. If I had 5% of that pie, I could retire an immeasurably wealthy man once this all blows over!

Almost Got It (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057499)

I was going to get the first post, but the extra surveillance on my connection slowed me down.

How can you sue? (5, Insightful)

boxless (35756) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057503)

when you can't legally get at the evidence?

The plaintiff's need to prove they were harmed in some way. And proving they were harmed will require divulging state secrets.

Case dismissed.

Re:How can you sue? (5, Interesting)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057589)

Unfortunately you are probably at least a little right. Hopefully something will come out in discovery though. Often even the most secretive and closed off agencies have poor controls on what they will release during discovery, maybe the EFF gets lucky. Also, we already know what ATT and the NSA were doing, so it isn't exactly a state secret anymore. Although I wouldn't put it by this administration to argue that even though the illegal program is now public knowledge it is still a state secret because they say so.

Re:How can you sue? (1, Interesting)

PMuse (320639) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058265)

Hopefully something will come out in discovery though. . . . Although I wouldn't put it by this administration to argue that even though the illegal program is now public knowledge it is still a state secret because they say so.

I'd say that this suit had potential as an election issue that would set people against the administration, except:

  • Sadly, few Americans care much about freedom from surveillance. Even those who care typically rank other issues higher. This issue won't get their vote.
  • The law-and-order crowd, however, will vote for anyone who champions more surveillance. "Catch the terrorists! Get tough on crime! I have nothing to hide! Won't some one think of the children! Why do you hate America!?"
  • Both presidential candidates voted for the recent legislation that gave immunity to the telcoms.

Frankly, this issue is a bigger loser for Democrats than for Republicans.

Re:How can you sue? (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058449)

Also, we already know what ATT and the NSA were doing, so it isn't exactly a state secret anymore.

No, we don't. The details are still pretty shadowy. For example: do you know whether or not you, personally, were spied upon? Did a human end up reading your unencrypted emails? All we really know is that they had a capacity to do so, and were trying like crazy to spy on someone. Who? U.S. Citizens? Foreigners? We don't know.

Re:How can you sue? (1)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057763)

I wonder if the plaintiffs even know whether they were spied on, or if they just suspect it. If they do and they have proof, then maybe they got a case.

No proof, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057867)

...who else would have been chortling in the background of all those 1-900 calls?

Re:How can you sue? (4, Insightful)

glassware (195317) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057815)

If there was ever a story destined to get the "goodluckwiththat" tag, this one is it.

If we can't throw anyone in jail for torturing US citizens in blatant violation of all laws, morals, ethics, and good judgment, how can we possibly hold someone accountable for spying on our phonecalls?

Sure, we all know it's completely, obviously, 100% illegal for the government to spy on Americans' phonecalls without bothering to get warrants. But this country operates in a reality distortion field. We used to hold our politicians accountable to the law. But now anytime a politician does something illegal, prosecuting them is somehow "political" and some narrowminded partisans will leap to any politician's defense regardless of how much wrong they've done.

Prosecuting a politician is indeed political. But please punish them in a manner that's appropriate to the crime. Bill Clinton deserved a fine or probation for his perjury. George Bush deserves 25 years to life for ordering innocent people imprisoned and tortured without any due process.

Re:How can you sue? (2, Funny)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057891)

Due process for torture? Don't give those guys any ideas there!

Re:How can you sue? (5, Interesting)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058073)

I am not a lawyer, but some evidence is already a little glaring in this case:

People complain about government surveillance sponsored by telecoms
Telecoms say "Government made us do it!"
Everyone looks at government and says "You can't do that."
Government passes a law that says "Now we can, and we're adding in a provision to say you can't complain about when we did before we passed the law!"

I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times if I must: The constitution was written by, for, and in behalf of terrorists, traitors, and criminals of their time. Possible terrorism is not an excuse to violate the constitution, as that is what it was written to protect. The illegal surveillance and retroactive immunity both violate the constitution.

This is like calling the police about a shooting, and when they get there, they find the dead body burned to ashes. When they ask "Why did you burn the body?" you say "Because if I burn the body, you can't arrest me for shooting him! You have no evidence!"

Re:How can you sue? (1)

andb52 (854780) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058165)

The ACLU currently has a similar lawsuit. Although I am not sure who the EFF exactly is representing as plaintiffs, the ACLU is using journalists and other individuals who can show that their work has suffered due to the fear of being spied on by the government.

Re:How can you sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058341)

You're probably right and they'll pull the state secrets bullshit again. But every time one lies, they dig themselves in a little deeper and risk a slightly higher chance of getting caught.

And interestingly, one way or another, there's going to be a new president in a few months. The next president can uphold the lie, or "stab their predecessor in the back" for whatever reason may be expedient (e.g. perhaps not wanting it to haunt them in the 2012 re-election?).

They'll probably lose, but it's worth trying.

BTW, it would amuse the fuck out of me, if AT&T (now that they're immune) were to leak something.

Finally (1)

astra05 (987104) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057509)

It is really about time someone stepped up and handled this. Go EFF.

NSA? (5, Funny)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057535)

NSA Press Conference: We have decided to take over the EFF in hopes that their participation with our goals will aid in furthering the United States' interests in National Security. We have assessed their allegations and decided that they were unwarranted and unfounded. Thank you for all your cooperation and we appreciate all the help from the leaders of the EFF.

EFF @ Gitmo: Fuck, I don't want a cock-meat sandwich...

Re:NSA? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057575)

EFF @ Gitmo: Fuck, I don't want a cock-meat sandwich...

Why would the EFF have something against chicken?

Re:NSA? (1)

Kuriomister (1366535) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057629)

ESA == NSA?? they seem to have varing goals...

It will be interesting (3, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057543)

To see exactly how this administration completely blows this off.

Re:It will be interesting (4, Insightful)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057951)

Easy, they just won't do anything about it, no one will report it, no one will care, and life will continue as it always does.

We will never hear of the story again, mark my words.

good for them (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057551)

Thank god someone's standing up to this BS. Although their mileage with this suite may not end up being what we hope, it's definitely a move in the right direction.

Oh Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057553)

This should end well... new "liberty" laws enabling this very type of behavior in 5, 4, 3, 2....

I hope it works this time (1)

Chris Rhodes (1059906) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057567)

Maybe it will work better than 'Jam Echelon Day'. Besides, they've moved a bit beyond that, tapping U.S. Internet traffic directly.

woot! (5, Funny)

TXG1112 (456055) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057569)

The NSA is EFF'd.

Re:woot! (3, Insightful)

taniwha (70410) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057673)

"woot" is right - time to send them some more money!

Re:woot! (2, Insightful)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057715)

Did RMS buy a new katana or something?

Re:woot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058515)

Did RMS buy a new katana or something?

Yeah. It is called "The Bitchmaker." He got it from John Romero.

Re:woot! (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057899)

Heh... heheheh... eheheheheh... that's funny...

Begin countdown (1)

Urger (817972) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057605)

Begin countdown to NSA "discovery" of an EFF-Al Qaeda/Russia/Democratic Party link...Now.

I hold little hope of anything meaningful. (2, Insightful)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057611)

When everyone in power is such a successful (not necessarily good) lair how can we even have a justice system?

Re:I hold little hope of anything meaningful. (1)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058235)

When everyone in power is such a successful (not necessarily good) lair how can we even have a justice system?

Did you mean "liar"? What you said could also mean metaphorically that once you come to power you become a "lair" hosting others....

Yea... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057613)

Thats going to "work"

If those bastards can steal an election and every freedom American's have then what makes you think this piddly lawsuit is going to do anything?

We need lead, of a different form. Both for US foreign image and those of you having to live it.

Oh SNAP! (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057621)

Good luck with that one. I hope EFF wins!
GO EFF!

How about Pelosi, Reid and Obama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057627)

Who voted for this as well?

Re:How about Pelosi, Reid and Obama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057759)

They didn't vote for nor conduct the program in its current form. They just voted for the a bill that didn't hold telcom companies accountable for being duped by the government. (Obama didn't even like that part, but felt it was a necessary compromise to get the otherwise beneficial bill through.)

Re:How about Pelosi, Reid and Obama? (2, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058287)

They didn't vote for nor conduct the program in its current form. They just voted for the a bill that didn't hold telcom companies accountable for being duped by the government. (Obama didn't even like that part, but felt it was a necessary compromise to get the otherwise beneficial bill through.)

In other words, he compromised his alleged principles and voted for a completely unconstitutional bill.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. [wikipedia.org]

Conversely, a form of ex post facto law [wikipedia.org] commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.

All raise their had for turning this into a .... (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057659)

...class action suit. /me Raises hand.

Re:All raise their had for turning this into a ... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057779)

...class action suit. /me Raises hand.

I take it you can prove you were harmed by this? I'm an AT&T customer, and can't begin to think of a way to prove I was listened in on (much less harmed). Without actual harm, you (and I) have no standing in a class action lawsuit.

Re:All raise their had for turning this into a ... (1)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058027)

Enjoy the latency added to your connection. You know.. that 1ms on every packet adds up. :D

Re:All raise their had for turning this into a ... (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058043)

I've called Afghanistan quite a few times. Surely they listened in on that a time or two.

Re:All raise their had for turning this into a ... (1, Troll)

I'm not really here (1304615) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058361)

Of course I was harmed by this: Emotional distress. Paranoia. I don't feel safe to talk on the phone. I'm afraid to buy any scientific or pyrotechnics books because I'll be sent to Gitmo without any trial... I can think of a number of things that can bring this situation to the point where it is clearly a serious detriment to my health and well being to have the government spying on all of my communications. (Not that I actually currently feel that way, but they are all legitimate reasons to sue.)

Re:All raise their had for turning this into a ... (1)

btempleton (149110) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058393)

You get your wish. It is a class action suit. Based on witness testimony and documents, undisputed in the suit against AT&T, a fiber splitter was put on AT&T's main network conduits, sending a copy of all traffic to a secret room under control of the NSA.

So indeed, we allege that it is quite likely that typical AT&T customers (and others) had their traffic intercepted, without a warrant, by the NSA.

In the civil case (still going on, though dealt a blow through the passage of an act of congress extending immunity to the phone companies) the law specified monetary damages for customers to whom this happened. In the case against the government officials and agencies, whom we allege also participated in this unlawful activity, other forms of relief, including getting it to stop, are sought.

Isn't this where... (3, Interesting)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057695)

...the EFF people start dropping dead after having shot themselves in the back of the head with a shotgun?

Re:Isn't this where... (2, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057771)

In soviet america government shoots you!

Re:Isn't this where... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057925)

There's no +1: Funny, But Sad mod. There should be.

Re:Isn't this where... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057945)

the same magic bullets that killed JFK.

Re:Isn't this where... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058045)

This isn't Arkansas...

it'll be something *much* less crude.

Re:Isn't this where... (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058069)

Only if they go on hunting trips with the VP

Re:Isn't this where... (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058353)

I long for the good old days of suicide, when a real man killed himself by caving in the back of his skull with a hammer after tying himself up and laying himself across railroad tracks. These EFF pukes don't have the *balls* to really do it right.

EFF members are discovered with Child pornography. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058409)

Need I say more?

Rattling their sabers... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057705)

After all, what is the EFF?
A loose coalition of lawyers who are absolutely useless.

If they are going to try to sue *THEM* (2, Funny)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057761)

I'm going to try to sue Nicholas Cage for being such a bad actor

Re:If they are going to try to sue *THEM* (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057959)

In America, you can sue anyone, and you'll probably win! Just imagine how easily you too can win a million dollars with little or no effort at all!

Call now, we have operators standing by!!

Re:If they are going to try to sue *THEM* (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058351)

I'm going to try to sue Nicholas Cage for being such a bad actor

If only it were that simple...Uwe Bol would have disappeared years ago under such a premise.

*knock knock*
"Hi, I am Uwe Bol. Here is $5. I am sorry for having been allowed to make the movies I have. I understand that you will never have that time back in your life, but maybe this money will help you buy a cheeseburger or something."

Keep fighting no matter the odds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057777)

This is all true, but at least they are fighting regardless the odds, someone has to.

So when the EFF's ace in the hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25057887)

proves to be evidence collected illegal and is thrown out does that also make it admissible?

Black bag time... (3, Funny)

glindsey (73730) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057893)

Friday:

All Members of EFF Mysteriously Vanish

Re:Black bag time... (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058365)

Saturday:

1- NSA announces missing EFF members taken by terrorists and takes over EFF while increasing Airport security in case terrorists try to smuggle EFF members by 767.

Other EFF case (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057931)

What is going on with the other EFF case? The ACLU and the EFF both sued, and I forget - one sued the government and the other sued the telecoms. The AT&T case was thrown out because of the state secrets thing, and the other... I haven't heard anything on. What is the status of that case?

Re:Other EFF case (1)

btempleton (149110) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058459)

An attempt was made to dismiss the case against AT&T due to state secrets. The court ruled in EFF's favour, NOT to throw out the case. This was then appealed, but the court of appeals has yet to rule, and is unlikely to rule for some time due to the passage of the recent FISA bill, which granted immunity to phone companies who participated in illegal wiretaps if they got various assurances from the government.

At present, it is anticipated that they will come into the courtroom in the future and ask for this immunity, but this has yet to happen.

WTF? (1)

Apoorv Khatreja (1263418) | more than 6 years ago | (#25057965)

I thought that you couldn't sue the President of America.

Re:WTF? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058503)

Why, is he somehow immune to the law of this country? The USA is not a fascist state.

EFF=Soros Front Organization (1, Informative)

dietdew7 (1171613) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058035)

So a Soros front organization sues the Bush administration right before the election? Maybe this is politically motivated.

Re:EFF=Soros Front Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058197)

So a Bavarian Illuminati front organization sues the Bush administration right before the election? Maybe this is politically motivated.

There, corrected it for you. Try to keep your truthiness-seeking conspiracy theories straight.

Posting anonymously because I expect this thread to be (rightly) downmodded into deeper oblivion than the original subject lawsuit, and faster.

Alright i have no choice .... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058105)

but to stick the "Proud Member" sticker that EFF sent me after my latest donation to my forehead, and go around living like that. will be a bit hard - its a bit large. but eh ....

FISA's telco immunities might actually help! (4, Interesting)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058147)

Recall that the telco immunities in the latest FISA passage only affect the telcos, not the government. If they're bold enough, the telcos may be able to help push this forward (since they're no longer able to be held liable, all this does it make their customers more comfortable by earning back their trust). Telcos likely have tons of documents they could publish (without invading customer privacy), teasing the courts with what must be loads more that could be secured with the appropriate warrants.

As to suing the government, I believe you actually have to petition for the right to sue ... which may be problematic when there's such obvious intent to keep this under wraps. I'm sticking with my pessimistic intuition that this won't come to light until all the relevant parties have retired or been removed from office (I hope I'm wrong ... heck, there's just barely enough time for an impeachment process, too!). Since this hurdle appears to have already been passed, there must be something resembling support -- hark, did the Dems grow a backbone?

The Bush administration... (-1, Flamebait)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058157)

The Bush administration has set new ground rules for dealing with terrorist suspects. I wouldn't normally condone waterboarding, but since they have no problem with it, let's strap the bastards down.

I'd love to hear GWB crying for momma Bush as the American people give him his just desserts.

When I think about the damage Bushco has done to millions of people, it seems fair to let each one of us have a lash at them.

I'm not talking about overthrowing the government - they already did that. I'm talking about defending our country by eliminating the aggressors.

Congress has failed at this over and over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058173)

Whats the EFF going to do, Nothing, Thats right Nothing. Its just a ploy to get your money and recognition. This same thing was apart of the 6406 and nothing ever happened. If Congress could of made good on at least one thing especially this they would of done it. Clinton got impeached because guess what the congress had a case and evidence. Since the congress is practically full of Tort lawyers and they couldn't make this impeachment happen I really doubt EFF's ability.

But there is one positive point. The free market always does work better then then Government so maybe this will happen.

"News for Nerds" vs "Editorial for Nerds" (3, Insightful)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058261)

News =

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop what they allege to be the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."

- Alaska Jack

Looking forward (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058299)

Looking forward to see how this one turns out

Time for Bush's go-to move... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058337)

An unopened e-mail can't hurt anyone.

This is what the compromise was (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25058461)

Why don't people understand that the bill that granted "telecom immunity" really was a compromise because it added the requirement that the president personally authorize the action? This bill is what opened him up to liability--now the EFF is able to sue the government agencies and officials even if they can't win against AT&T.

Good Luck, EFF! (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 6 years ago | (#25058469)

For all the good it will do you. I expect nothing will come from these suits. Everything will be swept under the national security/state secrets rug.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?