Mon 28 Jan 2008
Mon 28 Jan 2008
Mon 28 Jan 2008
Wed 31 Jan 2007
This week’s Circuit Court column is Sowing the Seeds of Surveillance.
Thu 17 Aug 2006
When I write my Wired News columns, pill the format doesn’t allow me to provide many links to information upon which I’ve relied. I’ve decided to supply those links here for people who are interested in digging deeper. Here are some of the resources I used for my order 71408-0.html?tw=wn_index_23″>column on the Korean wiretap scandal.
The extensive wiretappings, help dubbed the “X-files” by South Korean media, revealed not only problems with the agency, but also collusion between top conglomerates and politicians—one of the inveterate ills of South Korean politics: link
North Korea , pres. Kim position: link.
Scandal extends through 2002, technology used more advanced than previously admitted: link
Legal wiretapping increases:
Thu 20 Jul 2006
We won the state secrets issue in the Hepting v. ATT case, and the litigation will proceed. There’s always the possibility that a narrower state secret issue may come up later on, and the government is sure to re-raise the issue, but this is a huge win. Congratulations, EFF!
Also, my Wired News column on an interesting South Korean wiretap scandal and the different way that nation dealt with the problem is here. It’s engendered the usual, “she must love terrorists!” response. How trite.
I won’t have time to read the ATT ruling, or respond to the lugheads who’ve commented on my column today, because Brad and I are going to have lunch with the mayor of the City of Fukuoka, in Kyushu, Japan today. We’re also going to see some robots. Photos soon.
Wed 21 Jun 2006
Today’s Wired News column:Secrecy Mustn’t Crush Rule of Law.
Tue 20 Jun 2006
Kim Zetter discloses more illegal surveillance in: Is the NSA spying on U.S. Internet traffic? | Salon News.
Tue 20 Jun 2006
As attorneys for amici law professors, we just received this court order from Judge Vaughn Walker in the EFF/AT&T case. Its a fool’s errand trying to guess what a judge will do before he or she does it, but orders like this give a preview of the issues the court thinks are important in determining the case. Clearly, Friday’s hearing is going to be really interesting. Tomorrow morning my column on the state secrets issue will be on Wired News.
Fri 16 Jun 2006
I promised more on the state secrets doctrine. I’ve decided to write my next Wired News column on the issue raised in the EFF’s ATT case and the ACLU’s Detroit case. That will appear here and on Wired News on Wednesday, June 21st. Judge Walker will hold a hearing on the issue in the United States District Court in San Francisco on Friday, June 23rd at 9:30A, so this column will be a good way to get up to speed on what might happen during that hearing.
Meanwhile, here’s a phonecam picture of a great looking dish Brad and I ordered at Spices II! in the Richmond district last night. Its scallop with a snow of fried garlic (and two kinds of chili peppers).
Tue 13 Jun 2006
There’s an interesting article in the NY Times today: Arguments on Spy Program Are Heard by Federal Judge – New York Times. [Sorry for the link to the Times, which will eventually expire only to be replaced with a request that you pay $2 for the article, but this coverage is better than other articles I browsed.]
The article talks about a lawsuit brought in Detroit by the ACLU on behalf of James Bamford and other reporters and journalists claiming that the warrantless NSA surveillance is cramping their ability to do newsgathering. The issue before the court now is the same one that is currently before Judge Walker in the EFF’s case against ATT, whether the case can go on without revealing state secrets.
This article shows that the Detroit case is facing some of the same problems the EFF case is facing here.
First, there’s the question of standing. Standing means that the litigants in the lawsuit have to have suffered some actual harm that gives them a right to sue. Lack of standing is a great way for the government to get these cases dismissed. They argue, you can’t prove you were surveilled, and we can’t tell you if you were because that’s a state secret, so you don’t have standing, so the case has to be dismissed. The ACLU case is about the First Amendment, and relies on some more liberalized standing rules in those kinds of cases, but they are clearly facing similar problems. There, though, the lawyers will argue that they don’t have to prove that the plaintiffs or their sources were surveilled, only that the threat of surveillance chilled their First Amendment activities.
Second, and interwoven, is the question of state secrets. More on this later this afternoon.