Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

datacenterdynamics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#21

Post by luizfzs »

post_below wrote: post #5

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

That's one thing that Snowden mentions in his book. You cannot have a fair trial if you are an whistleblower, since that would include revealing/acknowledging the existence of such programs, thing they don't want to do.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#22

Post by aphextim »

nimbius wrote: post #9
HenryKissinger wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.

id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.

>id argue one cannot change the composition of congress.

I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change.

I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change.

What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and then milking it with all the donations, re election groups and lobby groups funneling them money making it very hard to actually enact any real change.

Even if one or two people make it to congress that are young and full of ideas/change they cannot get anything done because they are vastly outnumbered by the old fogies still writing policies like the 1950's.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#23

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alpple wrote: post #18
mdszy wrote: post #10

State secrets should not exist.

How large of a group of people should be able to have secrets? (although I agree, I'm trying to understand this more objectively)

> How large of a group of people should be able to have secrets?

That's not really the issue. It's not a matter of the government being forced to tell you something. They can keep a secret if they can keep the secret. But if you can present evidence which you've gathered on your own, you should be allowed to present it to the court and be heard. And if the government doesn't care to contradict your version of the facts by presenting contrary evidence then they shouldn't have to, but that may mean they'll lose their case.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#24

Post by adam12 »

post_below wrote: post #5

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

Isn't this the definition of a deep state?

Why do people think deep state is a conspiracy theory?

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#25

Post by StillBored »

mdszy wrote: post #10

State secrets should not exist.

That might be a bit strong, but they should be severely limited. They way it is today, frequently it seems like the "Secrets" are really just secrets from the citizenry. When you look at something like the U2 the "enemy" knew more about it than the American people. Same thing today, do you really think the Chinese can't figure out the capabilities of our spy sats?

Most of these secrets should have a defined and quite short timeframe. AKA if the CIA/NSA/FBI feels the need to investigate someone, then sure its a "secret" up until they decide to file charges, or drop the case. At that point everything should be public. Oh, and they should have a max of 3-5 years to do one or the other instead of just leaving the investigation open forever.

Same basic idea for "technology", with maybe a slightly longer timeframe (10 years?), none of this stuff is science fiction enough to warrant keeping it secret forever despite claims that newer stuff might build on the older.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#26

Post by LunaSea »

mdszy wrote: post #13
JaimeThompson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?

1. Nukes shouldn't even be a thing anymore, we should have disarmed long ago. 2. You say this as if any rando could build a nuke in their garage if they just had the plans. 3. You say this as if any large enough private weapons contractor couldn't figure out how to build a nuke. So yes. They should.

> 1. Nukes shouldn't even be a thing anymore, we should have disarmed long ago.

MAD is a thing for a reason so nukes should definitely not be disarmed

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#27

Post by jacquesm »

yellow_lead wrote: post #4

I have been thinking about these types of cases lately. It seems like any proof can be dismissed by three letter agencies with them using their "state secret" card as evidence to the contrary. i.e We have evidence to the contrary but you cannot see it. Darn, guess the case can't proceed.

In cases where the state has evidence that it can not show the case should proceed as if such evidence does not exist.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#28

Post by jessaustin »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #6
post_below wrote: post #5

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.

Congress should have oversight over TLAs, but unfortunately the converse is the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#30

Post by rdiddly »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #6
post_below wrote: post #5

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.

Ideally and in my fondest wishes, you're right. In practice however, I think it has become a game only people with vast sums of money can play.
Post reply on HN