EFF suing AT&T for helping NSA illegally spy on Americans

[zerojunkie]

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31...tt_for_he.html

This gets better and better, lifted off slashdot for anyone who frequents it. Some interesting arguments raised there too. Preminantly the precedent set if the court finds the activity legal...hrmmmm.

[zerojunkie]

oh, and the eff link.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31...tt_for_he.html

This gets better and better, lifted off slashdot for anyone who frequents it. Some interesting arguments raised there too. Preminantly the precedent set if the court finds the activity legal...hrmmmm.

lol - nothing like yellow journalism....

EFF suing AT&T for helping NSA illegally spy on Americans

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing AT&T for rolling over and helping the National Security Agency execute illegal warrantless wiretaps against American citizens:

the only true comment in there is that there were wiretaps

(the warrant was issued by POTUS and reviewed by FISA as well as bi-partisan congressional intelligence committee members, the taps were not illegal, they targets AQ operatives not American citizens - if a target was both, its no hard row to hoe to make the case that his/her AQ operative status was the thing of interest not his/her status as a citizen)

[zerojunkie]

Hey, you better fear the ACLU's octopus of doom.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspyi...s20060131.html

The GayCLU seems to think this is a pervasive, Echelon type of setup, trained on all Americans. I must admit, they could have a point. It'll be awfully hard to prove how they're using this system. It's legality, I would assume, would all depend on how sensitive their filter triggers are. That is to say that if the filter looked something like "if AQ guys cell phone in Uzbekistan is the source, tap data stream"; however if the filters were a bit more liberal, like the stereotypical story of saying or typing 'jihad' automatically triggers a tap on all or just that one communication...the latter doesn't sit well with me, but I'm unsure of even it's legality. I could venture a guess at it being very illegal.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Hey, you better fear the ACLU's octopus of doom.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspyi...s20060131.html

The GayCLU seems to think this is a pervasive, Echelon type of setup, trained on all Americans. I must admit, they could have a point. It'll be awfully hard to prove how they're using this system. It's legality, I would assume, would all depend on how sensitive their filter triggers are. That is to say that if the filter looked something like "if AQ guys cell phone in Uzbekistan is the source, tap data stream"; however if the filters were a bit more liberal, like the stereotypical story of saying or typing 'jihad' automatically triggers a tap on all or just that one communication...the latter doesn't sit well with me, but I'm unsure of even it's legality. I could venture a guess at it being very illegal.

If the facts they suggest are true then I'd agree with them and call hell for a waether advisory.