SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Techdirt reports
After having the court documents unsealed and the gag order lifted, Yahoo is finally free to talk about that one time when the government wanted to fine it $250,000 a day (!!) for refusing to comply with a FISA court order to turn over data on its customers. Two of the lawyers (Mark Zwillinger and Jacob Sommer) who represented Yahoo in that court battle, have written a post detailing the behind-the-scenes activity.
First off, they note that it's kind of amazing they're even able to discuss it at this point.
Having toiled in secret until recently, and having originally been told we would need to wait 25 years to tell anyone of our experience, it is refreshing to be able to write about the case in detail.
That's the normal declassification schedule, which at this point would still be nearly 18 years away. Fortunately, Ed Snowden's leaks have led to an accelerated schedule for many documents related to the NSA's surveillance programs, as well as fewer judges being sympathetic to FOIA stonewalling and exemption abuse.
We've talked several times about how the government makes it nearly impossible to sue it for abusing civil liberties with its classified surveillance programs. It routinely claims that complainants have no standing, ignoring the fact that leaked documents have given us many details on what the NSA does and doesn't collect. But in Yahoo's case, it went against its own favorite lawsuit-dismissal ploy.
First, the government's prior position on standing may be a bit of a surprise. In more recent cases, like Clapper, it has argued that only the provider has standing to challenge surveillance orders under the FISA Amendments Act, not individual users who may have been caught up in the surveillance. But, in this fight, the government argued that Yahoo had no standing to challenge a directive on the basis of the Fourth Amendment rights of its users.
[...]
The government filed ex parte documents in support of its surveillance program, many of which Yahoo had no access to during the legal struggle. Not only did the government force Yahoo to respond on its own schedule, but it kept the company in the dark about its justifications and other aspects of its programs. Yahoo couldn't ask for these documents in discovery, nor did it even know these existed.
[...]
When it comes to the nation's security, apparently no legal deck can be stacked high enough. The government forces those who challenge its secret programs to wage courtroom battles with only the barest minimum of information. And, should it decide the defendant isn't moving fast enough, it can pursue exorbitant (and admittedly coercive) fines until it gets the cooperation it's seeking.
Related: US Government Threatened Yahoo with $250K Daily Fine
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:35PM
Technically its a single party rule ogliarchy, and the opiate of the masses is lots of propaganda about how they get to select one of two carefully chosen in a back room candidates who run opposing PR campaigns but are fundamentally of the same party in all things that actually matter.
In everything that actually matters, 'Bama is just a younger McCain with a tan. Or McCain is just an older, paler 'Bama. In everything that doesn't matter we get a meaningless and intentionally distracting very loud PR war.
Without a culture driven by a very small number of media megacorps, the propaganda effectiveness breaks down. When you only have three nightly news narratives all the same, you can control the population a lot better than when "most people" get their news from comedy central or reddit or religious nuts or facebook posts. Personally I don't think thats a stable cultural situation, single party rule with anarchy for propaganda doesn't match, and it'll be interesting / scary to watch it break down in the future. Probably not long now.
Personally I think it'll only be as bad as the 60s riots although probably much more bloody with the militarization of the police. I don't agree with the survivalist types who expect everyone in the cities to die or become a golden horde or whatever. On the other hand I don't see a peaceful transition of power, too many extremists in the mix for that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 17 2014, @04:06PM
That's not precisely true. There's the "Bought Party" and the "Not Bought Party". The Bought Party has an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress, and controls the White House, but there are some members of Congress that are in the Not Bought Party. The goal of lobbyists in this version of the 2-party system is to move all politicians from the Not Bought Party to the Bought Party.
The fastest way to identify somebody in the Not Yet Bought Party is to look at how willing they are to make and enforce laws that punish rich people who harmed poor people. If they are, then chances are they aren't bought, because rich people do the vast majority of the buying and only want laws to apply only to poor people unless the bad guy also hurt rich people.
So yes, the "Democrat" and "Republican" thing is an illusion, but that doesn't mean there are absolutely no differences between politicians. My suggestion: If you find yourself with a Not Bought representative, actively support them up until the point when they start acting like a Bought representative, then work to replace them. Also, notice I said "acting like" - with any incumbent, ignore what they say, focus on what they do.
Why do you think they're so keen to abandon net neutrality, so that you can read or watch CNN as much as you like but can't get Alex Jones's stuff to download? (I don't agree with most of what Alex Jones says, but I will absolutely defend his right to speak and be heard by those who want to listen.) Those in the US government with authoritarian impulses hate the Internet, for precisely this reason.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @06:24PM
Why do you think they're so keen to abandon net neutrality, so that you can read or watch CNN as much as you like but can't get Alex Jones's stuff to download?
It is kind of funny to see such people hoisted by their own petard - like Glenn Beck who is virulently against net neutrality but is simultaneously very unhappy with the fact that the effective monopoly of cable television services is keeping his network out of all the major markets. [stopthecap.com]