US, AT&T try to shut down spying suit
- 26 June, 2006 08:08
- Comments 1
A suit against AT&T over alleged cooperation with government wiretapping should be dismissed because hearing it would mean exposing information that would help Al-Qaeda, the U.S. Department of Justice argued Friday in federal court in San Francisco.
Simply confirming or denying that such surveillance takes place could embolden terrorists by letting them know which forms of communication are monitored and which are not, Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler told Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in January sued AT&T on behalf of the carrier's customers, alleging it diverts traffic from its fiber-optic lines to the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of an illegal antiterrorist surveillance program. The class-action suit, one of several in the works, followed press reports last year about several major carriers providing data for broad domestic spying initiatives.
Judge Walker heard arguments Friday on motions by the government and AT&T to have the case dismissed, as well as on unsealing evidence and including AT&T as a defendant. He did not rule Friday or indicate when he may reach a decision. Both sides said they would appeal if the decision goes against their wishes.
Attorneys for AT&T said the carrier did nothing wrong but in any case could not be sued for complying with an authorized government search. It would be up to EFF to establish that there was no legal certification for the surveillance program, said Bradley Berenson of the law firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, a former associate White House counsel under President George Bush.
If the executive branch of government did authorize the NSA wiretap, it would be up to Congress, not AT&T or the courts, to determine whether that program was legal or not, Berenson said. Congress has had the chance to probe domestic spying programs started in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he said. Michael Hayden, who led the NSA when Bush ordered the spying, was confirmed last month as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a sign that Congress approved of the efforts, Berenson said.
EFF argued there are tight restrictions on wiretaps and AT&T had a responsibility to ensure the legality of a search it was being asked to assist in.
Also at the hearing, EFF and attorneys for media organizations called for key documents in the case, now mostly sealed, to be made public. AT&T and the government said the exposure so far of evidence apparently related to the case, such as documents from former AT&T engineer Mark Klein, doesn't argue for unsealing all the documents.
EFF also sought to include AT&T, which became the new parent company of AT&T last year after its merger with SBC Communications, as a defendant in the case. The judge did not rule on either motion Friday.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- Magic Quadrant for Managed Print Services, Worldwide
- Advanced Malware Exposed - How advanced malware, zero-day and targeted APT attacks are evading today's network defences
- Seven SOA Practices to Unlock Business Value
- Best Practices for Implementing a Data Warehouse on the Oracle Exadata Database Machine
- Leveraging the Service Catalog to Scale Your MSP Business
-
The NBN, service providers and you... what could go wrong?
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
FTC chairman: Do-not-track law may not be needed
-
Kindle sales soar but Amazon mum on actual numbers
-
Wall Street Beat: IPOs, M&A, chip news stir tech optimism
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Microsoft Office
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
Comments
Dan Scott
Where Did Government Put Your NSA-Wiretapped Communications?
Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by the government to prosecute Citizens.
In 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in “ordinary” criminal prosecutions. That was shortly after a court case lowered a barrier that blocked prosecutors from using illegal-wire tap evidence in Justice Dept. “Intelligence Files” to prosecute ordinary crimes. It would appear this information, may also be used by government to prosecute civil asset forfeitures.
See:http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5452
Considering this court case, it might be possible for NSA to share its “recent” electronic-domestic-spying with countless U.S. police agencies; including government contracted--companies and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate seizing Americans’ property—-to keep part of the bounty. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture.
There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property.
In the U.S. private security companies and their operatives work so closely with law enforcement to forfeit property—providing intelligence information, they appear to merge with police.
Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to telecom-NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal, to secure evidence to arrest Americans and or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and operating costs?
Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws: those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “retroactive civil asset forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning "property already tainted by crime" provided “the property” was already part of or “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress" when HR.1658 passed. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.
To help protect Americans from continuing police forfeiture abuse, Congress should pass legislation that raises the standard of evidence Government uses for Civil Asset Forfeiture from a mere “Preponderance of Evidence”, to “Clear and Convincing Evidence.
End of Item
Read Recent Shocking U.S. Police Forfeitures Story at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008851454_forfeit13.html
Article By Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune describes Tenaha, Texas—How African Americans and other motorists entering the town, were stripped by police of their belongings: cash, jewelry and other valuables without charging them with a crime. Asset forfeiture victims had to sign over their property to the town or face felony charges. This is an enormous story of police forfeiture abuse.
Post new comment