Marc: > Hi Daniel, > > >Once state secrets are out in the open and written > up > in the newspaper, even, obviously there cannot be a > further recourse to a state secrets doctrine (aside > from any possible criticisms to which the existence > of > the doctrine itself could be subject), as they are > no > longer, in any respect, secrets (the newspaper is > determinative in the same way that wedding or birth > announcements cannot be sent out after newspaper > publication, as everyone in theory knows). What can > be done about these defences, frivolous and > meritless > to the extent that they virtually mock the court, on > the part of AT&T other than to reject them? > > There is also the issue around descriptive focus on, > what is real and not real... > > "AT&T also argues that all of lawsuit needs to be > thrown out > because the government has never admitted to spying > on internet traffic > and getting phone records. It has only admitted to > wiretapping > overseas communications where one end of the > communication belongs to a > person suspected of terrorist links. Since the EFF > defendants say they > aren't terrorists or communicate with terrorists, > the only part of the > spying that has been admitted -- and thus admissible > in court -- > doesn't apply to them, AT&T argues. Since the rest > of the > purported surveillance is thus secret the case has > to be thrown out."
Yes; the standing issue is frequently used in a disingenuous manner by the government to get rid of these kinds of cases... > > So, when something finally gets challenged - > plaintiffs are thrown out mainly due to singular or > non accurate definitions of a charge - which of > course makes things harder... > > marc > > > > > >--- marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Spying Too Secret For Your Court: AT&T, Gov Tell > >>Ninth. > >> > >>AT&T told an appeals court in a written brief > Monday > >>that the case > >>against it for allegedly helping the government > spy > >>on its customers > >>should be thrown out, because it cannot defend > >>itself -- even by showing > >>a signed order from the government -- without > >>endangering national > >>security. > >> > >>A government brief filed simultaneously backed > >>AT&T's claims and said a > >>lower court judge had exceeded his authority by > not > >>dismissing the suit > >>outright. > >> > >>Because plaintiffs' entire action rests upon > alleged > >>secret espionage > >>activities, including an alleged secret espionage > >>relationship between > >>AT&T and the Government concerning the alleged > >>activities, this suit > >>must be dismissed now as a matter of law," the > >>government argued in its > >>brief (.pdf). > >> > >>The telecom giant and the government are appealing > a > >>June ruling in a > >>federal district court that allowed the suit > brought > >>by the Electronic > >>Frontier Foundation against the telecom to > proceed, > >>despite the > >>government's invocation of a powerful tool called > >>the "states secrets > >>privilege," which allows it to have civil cases > >>dismissed when national > >>secrets are involved. > >> > >>California Northern District Court Chief Judge > >>Vaughn Walker ruled, > >>however, that since the government had admitted it > >>was wiretapping > >>Americans without a warrant and that AT&T had to > be > >>involved, the case > >>could go forward tentatively. The Ninth Circuit > >>Court of Appeals will > >>hear the government and AT&Ts' appeal in the > coming > >>months. > >> > >> > > > >Once state secrets are out in the open and written > up > >in the newspaper, even, obviously there cannot be a > >further recourse to a state secrets doctrine (aside > >from any possible criticisms to which the existence > of > >the doctrine itself could be subject), as they are > no > >longer, in any respect, secrets (the newspaper is > >determinative in the same way that wedding or birth > >announcements cannot be sent out after newspaper > >publication, as everyone in theory knows). What > can > >be done about these defences, frivolous and > meritless > >to the extent that they virtually mock the court, > on > >the part of AT&T other than to reject them? > > > > > > > >> > >> > >http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/its_too_secret_.html > > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > >>NetBehaviour mailing list > >>[email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > >Daniel C. Boyer > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >The fish are biting. > >Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search > Marketing. > >http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > >_______________________________________________ > >NetBehaviour mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
