What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+36'Bout ***** time they got called on this ***** they have been pulling. Go EFF!
- tommythetomcat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26Kudos to them, im sure it wont get far but its the thought that counts right?
- NeoKamek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Marked as inaccurate. The article is about the EFF opening up a new office in Washington DC and hiring one of the attorneys from EPIC who filed the lawsuit against the government over the surveillance program. The EFF didn't sue the government; EPIC did.
- bonoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15He's right. Not a damn thing about suing anyone.
Marked as BS. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20what if you found out bush was using the nsa to spy on his political enemies and do his dirty work for him. and don't you dare say it won't happen because it has happened in the past, and could very well happen again.
- EEBaum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15RTFA, ppl. The article is about opening an office in DC and hiring two new attorneys.
- Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"...acting like Hitler,only worse..."
Worse than Hitler?
You mock the memory of 13 million people killed in Nazi death camps. Pull your head out of you ass and sip a hot cup of reality. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@koshak:
Sorry bud, I think you really need to drop your partisan politics and read a couple books on how the system of government works. Its best to start looking under the things that say "United States of America" and not "The People's Republic of China". - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -15/+25I predict the Supreme Court finding that Bush has special wartime powers that let him violate the law, granted to him by Jesus Christ (it's in Revelations, people!), and also he is a super guy and the EFF are doodyheads.
- Tufriast, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21EFF + ME = DOWN 4 LYFE!
Seriously, I'm gonna go give them some money now, they deserve it. Bout time someone started takin' out the garbage! - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19If I was the bush administration, I would use the spying for 3 things.
1) spy on political enemies(policitians) and find things to jail them with
2) spy on journalist that's against bush policies
3) spy on business leaders, so I can make stock purchases with insider trading.
So far, #2 has already come true, because of the CIA plame leaks and closing down of anti-war clubs and meetings.(you can google for that).
#3 is probably also correct, since vice-president cheney is reportedly having over 300% returns on his stock investments each year. Compare that with the normal 10% to 20% return that normal people get. I'm not sure how much bush is getting.
I wouldn't be surprised if #1 is also true, and one month before the 2006 elections, he unleashes all the dirt on other politicians to get the public to hate them. - sp0rk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15After noticing and reading koshak's comments on a lot of recent stories, I'm about 80% sure that he's just a troll.
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10pabster-
It would be great if they were using these wiretaps for terrorist. But, in truth, there was nothing stopping them from wiretapping terrorists before except that they had to get a court order. Since they don't want people to know what they are doing ( since it is most likely not wiretapping terrorists ) they refuse to follow the existing laws. Nixon illegally used wiretaps to spy on political enemies and on people who opposed the Vietnam war. The similarities are scary except that true conservatives, unlike the neo-cons such as yourself, are not raising the battle cry to impeach Bush like they did Nixon.
True conservatives don't believe in big government and will vote Democrat this election year. Maybe then we can remove the dictator who calls himself conservative. - Unknown1987, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11a prez cant pardon himself. Did you forget the whole damn Clinton thing. He couldnt pardon himself.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I personally would like the wiretap issue to go to court. I'm getting tired of hearing the rants "Bush's wiretaps are illegal", especially when no court has ruled on them yet. Let the courts finally decide the issue, so people can be justified in their ranting.
In my opinion, based on previous rules, I'd expect the courts to rule that the wartime powers authorized by Congress make this narrow scope of wiretapping legal. I don't like the program myself, but is almost surely legal.
Edit: I just read the article. The Digg summary exaggerates a rather blan story. I thought they were suing over the legailty of wiretaps. That's not at all what they're doing. They are simply suing to try to get some more information about the wiretaps. How boring. - rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"acting like Hitler,only worse"
o_O Did you flunk history or something? I'm not defending Bush here, mind you... but seriously, that's an INCREDIBLY offensive thing to say to people who lived through WWII. - Xopl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dear pabster,
If the government is only spying on terrorists and their allies then they MUST KNOW who the terrorists and their alllies ARE in order for them to be spying on them, and THEREFORE they would have PLENTY of TIME and INFORMATION with which to obtain a WARRANT.
So, why aren't they getting warrants then? - 511pf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Yeah, wiretapping terrorists and their allies is *****.
Damn liberals."
=======================
No one has a problem with the wiretapping. The problem is that wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. If the Bush administration would simply obtain the warrants the law requires, this issue would go away. The warrants can be obtained retroactively, so there is no timing problem.
Damn Ignorant Republicans. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
-Gandhi - Pizpump, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14The EFF pwns. Only damn organization with the balls to actually do something about the issues that most of us just bitch about.
From now on, I'm paying my taxes to the EFF. - PrakritJena, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sony Rootkit scandal
Online Policy Group v. Diebold
EFF protected online speakers by bringing the first successful suit against abusive copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
ACLU v. Reno and ACLU v. Ashcroft - CDA and COPA
EFF extended free speech protections online, successfully challenging the constitutionality of Internet censorship laws.
Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service
EFF set one of the first precedents protecting computer communications from unwarranted government invasion.
Some EFF victories from their website. None of them are probably earth shaking on their own, but they set precedents, and provide one of the few successful independent groups suing the government/corporations. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This isn't like Papal Infalibility though. Is it even possible for the prez to pardon himself?
- eastshores, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"In the last few years, EFF has been busy on projects including opposing what the group calls overly restrictive copyright laws, advocating for free speech rights including in a case brought by Apple Computer, and suing AT&T over its alleged involvement with NSA surveillance."
I guess that is where they got the title.. Title is misleading... but indirectly they are suing AT&T for cooperation with the NSA, so it's somewhat related. Not sure about the administration. Definately a misleading title. - eastshores, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12I hope the EFF adds to the fire, they surely can't do it alone. There are republicans now jumping ranks and threatening to cut spending on the domestic wiretapping, because either they are as they say frustrated that the administration is walking on congress, or perhaps it is a political issue, and given the administration polls they are distancing themselves.
I'm not sure what is going on in reality, but I am glad to see the EFF show up on the scene. As with the ACLU, and other liberties organizations, I hope that the idea of government respecting the rights of the citizens it was elected by is continued (if thats not too late) I hear so many people criticize the ACLU and other liberties orgs because they don't agree on a particular agenda. I am just not sure when America turned into a partisan BS fest...
Hope we find our way soon. - blanski, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16I hope they win. I know they won't.
- triad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow I like how the title says Bush a few times but the actual article doesnt even mention the Bush administration. Funny how a good story wont mention Bush but a bad one will say "Bush Administration".
- 511pf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"No law was violated. With or without special powers."
=============================================
The FISA law was violated:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210011 - gprime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Reading the article shows that they're not suing. They just hired new lawyers known for past lawsuites on a similar topic. Besides, they can't sue the government, as under US law, you can only sue the US government if they agree to allow you to sue them. Either way, its good to see the EFF expanding.
- moofdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Clinton wasn't convicted of any crimes to pardon himself for.
And no, Presidents can't pardon themselves. - mutant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Partisianship + DIGG = ***** retard readers.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Of course it's not illegal, koshak. But the issue has to be settled once and for all. When the EFF loses this case it will set a precedent and clear up any future confusion or legitimacy claims. Then the government can stop having to defend itself from constant partisan, leftist attacks in the courts and the country can focus on the real issues.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Do y'all even have the first clue at to whom the wiretaps were directed? The monitored INCOMING calls from KNOWN al Queda operatives overseas. Sorry, but that is something we should ALL want to know about. I'm not sure if y'all remember, but al Queda WANTS TO KILL US ALL. Liberal or conservative! They don't care that you voted for Nader of Kerry. No Mercy for the Infidel! Wake the ***** up people. WE ARE AT WAR.
If you seriously think Bush is equal to Hitler, you would have despised FDR for incarcerating an entire race of people in California.
As an aside, I consider GWB to be ***** this war up. We could have won it on 9/12/01 if he wasn't such a pussy. Maybe he has finally learned from the ***** that is Iraq. If Iran wants nukes so damn bad, lets give them all they can handle! Before London disappears permanently. - MrCobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Pfft the Constitution is an antiquated document used by liberals, pinkos and terrorists to try to get Satan into schools and sell kids copies of GTA.
- DarkHack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, anyone have a solution to how we could monitor terrorist in this country who want to blow up the US???
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You see, DaBlade, crap like that CAN'T happen in the United States. We have this Doomsday provision in the Constitution called the 2nd Amendment. James Madison et al. was wise enough to put that provision in the COTUS for just an occurrence such as what you describe.
Know what's really scary? Hardcore liberals think that every Amendment EXCEPT the 2nd applies to individuals. The one single Amendment that protects absolutely all the others. I never figured that one out. Want to safeguard your future? Buy a rifle and train with it. After all, thats what Well Regulated means. Someone who knows how to use a rifle.
If you are really worried about the US becoming a Police State, kick out all of the politicians who would disarm the American populace, Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Shumer, Klinton et cetera. The Federal Gov't needs to be afraid of it's people. If the people have no way to rise up, then what is there to be afraid of? - 511pf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I support the 2nd Amendment, and I'm what you would call a "liberal," though I don't consider myself one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13Except it is not illegal.
- 511pf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FISA is the law. In a Democracy, you don't get to ignore the law because it's a "farce", "not necessary" or "not required." If you don't like the law, go through the democratic process to change it. The Government ignoring or breaking laws is not compatible with living in a democracy.
- brockpetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ bonchbonch
Actually no, Clinton didn't do the same thing. If you knew anything about the FISA Court you wouldn't have said that.
See, Clinton actually went through the proper channels (FISA Court) to get express permission to conduct such warrantless procedures, while Bush totally disregarded that requirement and actually conducted this warrantless spying without any consent whatsoever from the FISA Court (and yes, that's what this particular court system was created for).
So I think the main thing here is not that this domestic spying was taking place, but the fact that this administration blatantly acted without the permission from the judiciary that hears these types of secret national security cases. Many people consider this as the Bush administration thinking that they're "above the law" as there was literally no oversight whatsoever in this case, which is pretty damn disgusting in my opinion.
You can all read about FISA Courts @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court
and FISA @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wait, why is there a court case over this? I was under the impression Bush publicly admitted he's performing warrantless taps?
- moofdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Uh...it is illegal actually. The president needs to go the FISA courts for a warrent, which they didn't do. Regardless of whether the law is archaic or not, its still the law. Bush ordered the NSA to tap without a warrent, thus violating the law.
- Haiyadragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ahead Israel
Maccabi controls
is what a crappy arabic translator gave me... - tksownz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3When will these people learn, this is not illegal becasue he would have been impeached! He is allowed to do this becasue he already checked with the courts a month before he did it he checked with the courts, and to top it off he would need to go to the court only if he was going to tap the citizens in the country, meaning if they were to call anyone else within the country. However he only calls that were tapped were the ones coming from outside the counrty and calls going outside of the county to SUSPECTED TERRORISTS! That all these "domestic wire taps" were. Sorry if I sound a little incoherent right now, just woke up, but this court issue, which is blow outta proportion by the digg article, has nothing. . .
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ So, anyone have a solution to how we could monitor terrorist in this country who want to blow up the US??
The wiretaps would be fine if they'd just get a warrant. I know it sounds silly. But, proceedural law is important. All we're asking is that the executive branch not violate the separation of powers laid out in the constitution. In this case, that only takes a token effort. Just make that token effort. Hell, do it up to 3 days later if you must. Bush should just uphold the constitution as he swore to do. This didn't have to become a big deal. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I'm so incredibly proud of being an EFF member right now. While the article doesn't say it's suing the government, it's still an important step towards doing so. Also, they are suing AT&T for supporting the government in setting up their e-Panopticon.
Go EFF! - Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5EFF Suing the Government.....thats like going up against the Oil Cartel and I would not be suprised if the EFF is Counter Sued.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1http://www.videobomb.com/posts/show/1084
http://revradio.org/movies/ml.wmv - miket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Keep in mind, these are not "private" communications in the first place...you honestly have expectations of privacy when using a wire owned by a public entity?
Where, also, does the constitution cover any kind of communication? nowhere? So listening to someone talking on the street is just like connecting to their phones.......ever drivin around town with a scanner going through the 800-900MHz range? its amazing some of the conversations you hear from those older cordless phones!
Article II of the Constitution, which makes the President the %u201Ccommander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,%u201D gives the President broad powers to conduct war independently. - McGimpus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I find it interesting that the link to the article declares the wiretapping illegal, but when you read the article itself. It is quite clear that it is still only allegedly illegal.
Could this be political bias designed to rile up big users?? - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The funny thing is that the ACLU was started in 1920 under the view of protecting American liberties. I guess I must be getting old, but aren't those conservative values? When did you have to be a liberal to not want the government getting in to your stuff? When did the Democrats seem like the party for small government? When did conservative=Republican and liberal=Democrat? When did the states become color coded by two colors? Why are these the same colors used in the Civil War?
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is