Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
datacenterdynamics.com
Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#2Judge 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 requiring harmful disclosures of privileged state secrets, an outcome prohibited under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent.
"Thus, the case must be dismissed, and judgment must be entered in favor of defendants."
Ellis is a traitor in the legal sense of the word, and (though it's been obvious for a while) the court systems are broken.
Formerly, Ellis has similarly sided with the CIA against Khalid El-Masri, a man who was "allegedly" tortured by the CIA, despite being fully aware justice wasn't being dealt. To quote him:
"If El-Masri's allegations are true or essentially true, then all fair-minded people, including those who believe that state secrets must be protected, that this lawsuit cannot proceed, and that renditions are a necessary step to take in this war, must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy."
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/day-court-denied-victim-...
Given that the Judicial Branch can be considered compromised, the Executive Branch is the one being accused, and the Legislative Branch allowed this to happen to begin with, everyone should act as if the U.S. government is a hostile, compromised actor. Don't attack it, but defend yourself.
Avoid allowing proprietary software from touching any of your secrets (ideally go for software created by foreigners). Keep your communications safe and encrypted. Standard stuff, but there's more of an incentive to use it, now.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#3[deleted]
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#4I 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.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#5From 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 requiring harmful disclosures of privileged state secrets, an outcome prohibited under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent."
This is why whistleblowers are so important. The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance.
It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#6From 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.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#7Judge 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 requiring harmful disclosur…
HN thinks about hiring and pipeline processes which lead to signal in orgs, but little about the US justice system seems to inspire faith that they are up to the task of promoting their best to the judicial hierarchy. Instead we should expect that the best legal minds are consultants for corporations.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#8From 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.
With the state secrets firewall, you have no idea whether or not you should change the composition of Congress.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#9From 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.
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.
Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance
#10State secrets should not exist.