hi,
this is famous qwerty secret agent... i've got you, marc, daniel... i
know your names... i've written
down your names,
and now... i just have to wait that my security secrent agency car
comes to get you up... it is a philip k dick cool car...
...and
( ... )
sorry, hi again to you 2 and all list members,
this is blanca, from madrid, spain.
i've joined today the list and see some works.
i don't know how to colaborate with you,
net design
digital photography
ideas
thoughts
things
music
poems...
my net diary is at http://mirada.arkania.org/crisol.php.
is in spanish, but i would develop something in english if it is
necesary...
does someone know how many are in the list, from where... ?
(i even don't know if this is an off-topic !!!)
let me know about, thanks...
b_ing
Daniel C. Boyer escribió:
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
|
