WIRED magazine stands up to Uncle Sam - help them out

A file detailing aspects of AT&T's alleged participation in the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretap operation is sitting in a San Francisco courthouse. But the public cannot see it because, at AT&T's insistence, it remains under seal in court records.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story...HERE

I looked for this all over with the search feature and couldn't find it, so I profusely apologize it it's been mentioned somewhere that evaded me.

Anyway, In order to show support of Wired, I too am posting this link to the documents in question and encouraging everyone to download. Please feel free to take it and redistribute it all over the web as you see fit. Hell, put it in the mail to your congressmen, your leaders, the media - you name it.

The truth needs to be told.

There is no time for the old 'conservative versus liberal' debate in the upcoming election. The issue before us, right here and right now, is whether we will bequeath to our children a democracy - as imperfect, messy, and corrupt as democracy can be - or a police state.

Well, I disagree with you. The documents were sealed by court order, and we must respect the order of the courts. We are a land of laws.

If this blatant disregard for the rule of law is condoned, then what is to stop all of your own personal records from being fair game? Would you like it if your medical records were made public on the internet? What about records of misdeeds when a person was a juvenile? What about rape victim's names and photographs?

The proper way to obtain these records is to go through the court system. To make whistleblowers out as some type of brave patriots in a case like this is reasoning like a child would reason.

First the NSA claimed that they were not snooping, and then they were snooping, and then that it was only snooping phone numbers, and now its right back to plain snooping again.

Your argument holds no water, and hiding behind claims of living in "a land of laws" only makes you look as though you are a puppet of the system - happy to live under a blanket of lies. We're not talking about personal records - medical or otherwise. Those documents pose no significant danger to AT&T - they do not reveal information that cackers might use to easily attack the company's systems.

The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the Electronic Frontier Foundation, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. Not WIRED, not you, not anyone else.

The only ones breaking the laws here sit in fancy leather seats in the DC area, my friend. Deny Ignorance.

"Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))"

This pretty much clinches the fact that the Republican party has become irreversably corrupt.

(1) White House thumbs nose at Constitution and orders full intercepts with no court oversight.

(2) White House again, shucks the Constitution, implements CDR collections en mass from the telcos. Telcos offer "no comment due to govt. security".

(3) Telcos are sued for privacy breach. Faced with having to defend themselves, telcos turn to White house for help.

(4) White House issues memorandum promising no legal action if the telcos lie in court.

In other words, if you are on the "right" side, you can lie, cheat, steal, and probably murder. What does this make us? Can you spell S-L-A-V-E-S? It reminds me of an old Steppenwolf song..

"America, where are you now? Don't you care about your sons and daughters? Don't you know, we need you now, we can't fight alone against the monster".

Look, if you're not a terrorist you don't have anything to worry about. It probably helps if you don't have a terrorist name, too. Or if you're a Muslim with a normal, American name you may want to be careful. Also, if you look like you come from a terrorist country. Also, if you're an illegal immigrant from Mexico, you might want to watch out. Also gays. And blacks. And Democrats. And maybe, just maybe Jews and atheists. It depends on how much you complain next Christmas. See what I mean?

Spying on American citizens is bad.

What's horrifingly, mind-bogglingly bad, however, is the train of thought they can do whatever they damn well please, because they're The Deciders.

However, given this administration's propensity for truth, openness, and proper respect for the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution, I don't think they'd ever abuse that. Do you? Oh, wait...

The problem is not intel-gathering. The problem is a severe abuse of power, continued lying, and power grabs in the name of "preventing terrorism" by the executive branch. To think that people actually want to help to keep that information hidden from their own countrymen saddens me.

Your argument holds no water, and hiding behind claims of living in "a land of laws" only makes you look as though you are a puppet of the system - happy to live under a blanket of lies.

So, are you saying that you don't believe in following the law? Are you an anarchist?

We're not talking about personal records - medical or otherwise.

So what would your argument be if we were talking about medical records? That the public has a "right to know"? Where does it stop?

Those documents pose no significant danger to AT&T - they do not reveal information that cackers might use to easily attack the company's systems.

I see you're good at parroting the WIRED magazine official line? There is more involved here than "cackers" (hackers?). There is the right to privacy.

The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the Electronic Frontier Foundation, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. Not WIRED, not you, not anyone else.

I got the same response from one of the senior editors at WIRED. I will give you the same response that I gave him. From the article:

"The judge in the case has so far denied requests from the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, or EFF, and several news organizations to unseal the
documents and make them public."

Part of my answer to him:

So how do you manage to publish them unless they are released, or
fraudulently obtained?

It's ironic that you try to make the case for privacy when it comes to yourself, but when it applies to other individuals or entities, you think it's OK to disregard it.




[edit on 23-5-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Your argument holds no water, and hiding behind claims of living in "a land of laws" only makes you look as though you are a puppet of the system - happy to live under a blanket of lies.

So, are you saying that you don't believe in following the law? Are you an anarchist?

We're not talking about personal records - medical or otherwise.

So what would your argument be if we were talking about medical records? That the public has a "right to know"? Where does it stop?

Those documents pose no significant danger to AT&T - they do not reveal information that cackers might use to easily attack the company's systems.

I see you're good at parroting the WIRED magazine official line? There is more involved here than "cackers" (hackers?). There is the right to privacy.

The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the Electronic Frontier Foundation, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. Not WIRED, not you, not anyone else.

I got the same response from one of the senior editors at WIRED. I will give you the same response that I gave him. From the article:

"The judge in the case has so far denied requests from the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, or EFF, and several news organizations to unseal the
documents and make them public."

Part of my answer to him:

So how do you manage to publish them unless they are released, or
fraudulently obtained?

It's ironic that you try to make the case for privacy when it comes to yourself, but when it applies to other individuals or entities, you think it's OK to disregard it.




[edit on 23-5-2006 by jsobecky]

I find it ironic, as well that you claim that this is a matter of privacy when you are doing nothing but supporting the very violation of the privacies of American citizens. You can't have your cake and eat it, too - so which is it? As long as you're not bothered, personally, it's fine?

Isn't that the same argument you were attempting to use on me?

I find it ironic, as well that you claim that this is a matter of privacy when you are doing nothing but supporting the very violation of the privacies of American citizens.

I have no idea where you came up with this bs, but you are wrong. And you're doing nothing to prove your case about the topic; instead, you are resorting to personal attacks.

Bye.

lol - that's pretty much what I figured. You tried to make a completely laughable argument that tied in unrelated information, stepped all over your own keyboard when you contradicted yourself, then you say I'm insulting you?

You're only insulting yourself with this embarrassing diatribe. "Bye" is right. Hopefully someone with a little knowledge of the situation will care to talk about it.