Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday November 30 2018, @12:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the encrypted-arguments dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

DOJ made secret arguments to break crypto, now ACLU wants to make them public

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Fresno, California, denied prosecutors' efforts to compel Facebook to help it wiretap Messenger voice calls. But the precise legal arguments that the government made, and that the judge ultimately rejected, are still sealed.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union formally asked the judge to unseal court dockets and related rulings associated with this ongoing case involving alleged MS-13 gang members. ACLU lawyers argue that such a little-charted area of the law must be made public so that tech companies and the public can fully know what's going on. This element of the case began in August 2018, when an FBI special agent told the court in an affidavit that "there is no practical method available by which law enforcement can monitor these calls" between suspected MS-13 gangsters. Authorities already had traditional wiretaps and were able to intercept written messages between the defendants, who are now in custody.

While traditional telecom companies must give access to police under a 1990s-era law known as CALEA, Internet-based calls are exempt, despite the government's previous efforts to change the law. Prosecutors seemingly argued that Facebook nevertheless had to comply with the government's request. The judge reportedly denied the government's efforts during an August 14, 2018 hearing. In their new filing, ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 30 2018, @02:29AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 30 2018, @02:29AM (#768116) Journal

    It sounds like the process worked

    And.. how are we suppose to know it? What if the judge actually allowed something even if rejected the rest?

    ... and what exactly are we supposed to find out here?

    The story in its entirety. Isn't it obvious?

    As to "why?":
    1. a secret ruling does not a precedent make. Without it, there's no warranty the next time the motion will be rejected.
    2. "Informed decision" is necessary** for democracy, it works poorly with an uninformed population.

    ** granted, is it not sufficient, but in the presence of secrecy in regards public matters, democracy stands no chance.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2