Comments on: ACLU vs AT&T Surveillance Lawsuit Thrown Out http://donklephant.com/2006/07/26/aclu-vs-att-surveillance-lawsuit-thrown-out/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Dyre42 http://donklephant.com/2006/07/26/aclu-vs-att-surveillance-lawsuit-thrown-out/comment-page-1/#comment-56320 Dyre42 Thu, 27 Jul 2006 04:35:49 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/07/26/aclu-vs-att-surveillance-lawsuit-thrown-out/#comment-56320 There is the possibility that the EFF loses and appeals to the SCOTUS and its hard for me to speculate whether the SCOTUS would take the case and how they would rule if they chose to do so. There is the possibility that the EFF loses and appeals to the SCOTUS and its hard for me to speculate whether the SCOTUS would take the case and how they would rule if they chose to do so.

]]> By: Sean Aqui http://donklephant.com/2006/07/26/aclu-vs-att-surveillance-lawsuit-thrown-out/comment-page-1/#comment-56318 Sean Aqui Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:52:23 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/07/26/aclu-vs-att-surveillance-lawsuit-thrown-out/#comment-56318 I don't see the first judge's reasoning. Everybody now assumes that AT&T is cooperating, so confirming it wouldn't harm security. Showing that it hadn't happened -- yet -- wouldn't make terrorists flock to AT&T. Outlawing the practice might convey useful info to terrorists, but so what? That's the price we pay for living in a free society under the rule of law. If I'm a criminal, I know my Miranda rights and that my home cannot be searched without a warrant. Knowing the law helps me find ways around it; but that doesn't mean we should eliminate such protections, or keep them secret. I could see his point if the trial might expose truly damaging operational details of ongoing programs. But that shouldn't be a get-out-of-court-free card for the government. There has to be a way to publicly contest and discuss our government's actions. A model might be what happened in a previous row over the Patriot Act, when the ACLU was allowed to argue before the secret FISA Court of Review. The EFF suit, if it proceeds, will simply force Congress to make a decision on the eavesdropping case. If Specter's bill is the best Congress is willing to do, It may simply trump the suit by expressly legalizing such activity. I don’t see the first judge’s reasoning. Everybody now assumes that AT&T is cooperating, so confirming it wouldn’t harm security. Showing that it hadn’t happened — yet — wouldn’t make terrorists flock to AT&T.

Outlawing the practice might convey useful info to terrorists, but so what? That’s the price we pay for living in a free society under the rule of law. If I’m a criminal, I know my Miranda rights and that my home cannot be searched without a warrant. Knowing the law helps me find ways around it; but that doesn’t mean we should eliminate such protections, or keep them secret.

I could see his point if the trial might expose truly damaging operational details of ongoing programs. But that shouldn’t be a get-out-of-court-free card for the government. There has to be a way to publicly contest and discuss our government’s actions. A model might be what happened in a previous row over the Patriot Act, when the ACLU was allowed to argue before the secret FISA Court of Review.

The EFF suit, if it proceeds, will simply force Congress to make a decision on the eavesdropping case. If Specter’s bill is the best Congress is willing to do, It may simply trump the suit by expressly legalizing such activity.

]]>