Learn from the mistakes of others

Friday, June 02, 2006
DOJ wants ISP help in tracking website visits, internet searches, e-mail traffic
Jaime Jansen at 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller plan to resume talks on Friday with major internet service providers on retaining customer data on internet activities that would allow them to better combat child pornography and terrorism. An initial meeting [JURIST report] last Friday included American Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast; this week's meeting will include a broader group of representatives from internet companies. The Justice Department [official website] wants to be able to view records that could help them identify which internet users visited specified websites and potentially which users conducted specified searches, as well as determine who exchanged e-mails with whom without disclosing the content of the e-mails.

The issue of government access to detailed internet records is an extremely sensitive one. Earlier this year the Justice Department fought a legal battle [JURIST report] with Google, Inc. [corporate backgrounder] when Google refused to turn over index data or search terms [JURIST report] in response to a Justice Department subpoena [PDF text]. A federal judge ultimately ordered Google [JURIST report] to turn over a limited number of indexed addresses. Justice Department officials have also suggested that retained data could be used to control intellectual property theft and fraud.

The New York Times have more.

"So, can you explain what you were doing looking at this website, on this day, at this time?"

"We found that you entered the following search into search engine, on this day, at this time. Please explain."

Friday, June 02, 2006
DOJ wants ISP help in tracking website visits, internet searches, e-mail traffic
Jaime Jansen at 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller plan to resume talks on Friday with major internet service providers on retaining customer data on internet activities that would allow them to better combat child pornography and terrorism. An initial meeting [JURIST report] last Friday included American Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast; this week's meeting will include a broader group of representatives from internet companies. The Justice Department [official website] wants to be able to view records that could help them identify which internet users visited specified websites and potentially which users conducted specified searches, as well as determine who exchanged e-mails with whom without disclosing the content of the e-mails.

The issue of government access to detailed internet records is an extremely sensitive one. Earlier this year the Justice Department fought a legal battle [JURIST report] with Google, Inc. [corporate backgrounder] when Google refused to turn over index data or search terms [JURIST report] in response to a Justice Department subpoena [PDF text]. A federal judge ultimately ordered Google [JURIST report] to turn over a limited number of indexed addresses. Justice Department officials have also suggested that retained data could be used to control intellectual property theft and fraud.

The New York Times have more.

"So, can you explain what you were doing looking at this website, on this day, at this time?"

"We found that you entered the following search into search engine, on this day, at this time. Please explain."

Sunday, May 28, 2006
DOJ wants NSA wiretapping suits dismissed on state secrets basis
Bernard Hibbitts at 12:55 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice late Friday filed for dismissal of two lawsuits [JURIST report] brought over the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program [JURIST news archive], saying that defending them would require disclosure of state secrets and would be contrary to national security interests. The first suit [CCR press release; complaint, PDF], brought in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights [official website] in January on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the government's criteria for targeting, asks the federal courts to block the program as an abuse of presidential power without judicial approval or statutory authorization in breach of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Article II of the US Constitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments. The second suit [ACLU press release; complaint, PDF] brought in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations similarly having "a well-founded belief that their communications are being intercepted by the NSA" also charges that the NSA program violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

Shayana Khadidl, a staff attorney on the CCR litigation, responded [CCR statement] to the dismissal motion by saying:

The Bush Administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument. This is a mysterious and undemocratic request, since the administration says the reason the court is being asked to drop the case is a secret. I think it's a clear choice: can the President tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the President accountable for breaking the law.

The government motion was made in immediate response to CCR's own motion for summary judgment [PDF] in the case, filed March 9. CCR's own response to the government motion has not been filed, but is expected to emphasize that its evidence on the illegality of the spying program is based on public evidence, not secret documents, and that even if the government is correct in saying that a public trial could disclose state secrets, alternatives exist in the form of closed proceedings or requiring filings to be made under seal.

Earlier this month, the DOJ successfully persuaded [JURIST report] a federal judge in the al-Masri CIA rendition case to dismiss an ACLU suit on similar state secrets grounds [JURIST report]. The US Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case of United States v. Reynolds [opinion text]. The government invoked the privilege [News Media & The Law commentary] in only four cases between 1953 and 1976, but it was invoked by the Bush administration 23 times in the four years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been invoked at least five times in the past year.

Sunday, May 28, 2006
DOJ wants NSA wiretapping suits dismissed on state secrets basis
Bernard Hibbitts at 12:55 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice late Friday filed for dismissal of two lawsuits [JURIST report] brought over the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program [JURIST news archive], saying that defending them would require disclosure of state secrets and would be contrary to national security interests. The first suit [CCR press release; complaint, PDF], brought in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights [official website] in January on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the government's criteria for targeting, asks the federal courts to block the program as an abuse of presidential power without judicial approval or statutory authorization in breach of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Article II of the US Constitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments. The second suit [ACLU press release; complaint, PDF] brought in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations similarly having "a well-founded belief that their communications are being intercepted by the NSA" also charges that the NSA program violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

Shayana Khadidl, a staff attorney on the CCR litigation, responded [CCR statement] to the dismissal motion by saying:

The Bush Administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument. This is a mysterious and undemocratic request, since the administration says the reason the court is being asked to drop the case is a secret. I think it's a clear choice: can the President tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the President accountable for breaking the law.

The government motion was made in immediate response to CCR's own motion for summary judgment [PDF] in the case, filed March 9. CCR's own response to the government motion has not been filed, but is expected to emphasize that its evidence on the illegality of the spying program is based on public evidence, not secret documents, and that even if the government is correct in saying that a public trial could disclose state secrets, alternatives exist in the form of closed proceedings or requiring filings to be made under seal.

Earlier this month, the DOJ successfully persuaded [JURIST report] a federal judge in the al-Masri CIA rendition case to dismiss an ACLU suit on similar state secrets grounds [JURIST report]. The US Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case of United States v. Reynolds [opinion text]. The government invoked the privilege [News Media & The Law commentary] in only four cases between 1953 and 1976, but it was invoked by the Bush administration 23 times in the four years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been invoked at least five times in the past year.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Federal judge extends Microsoft antitrust settlement until 2009
Joe Shaulis at 1:32 PM ET

[JURIST] Microsoft [corporate website; JURIST news archive] must abide by the terms of its 2002 antitrust settlement [final judgment, PDF] with the US Justice Department [official website] through November 2009, a federal judge said Wednesday. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [official profile] approved the DOJ's two-year extension request [JURIST report; joint status report], which Microsoft had agreed to, during a status conference in US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website].

The DOJ said the extension was necessary [press release] because Microsoft has been slow to improve the technical documentation it provides to licensees of communication protocols for the Windows operating system. As part of the extension, Microsoft has said that it plans to create an "interoperability lab" [press release] where licensees can test and de-bug their protocols with help from Microsoft engineers.

CNET News has more.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Federal judge extends Microsoft antitrust settlement until 2009
Joe Shaulis at 1:32 PM ET

[JURIST] Microsoft [corporate website; JURIST news archive] must abide by the terms of its 2002 antitrust settlement [final judgment, PDF] with the US Justice Department [official website] through November 2009, a federal judge said Wednesday. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [official profile] approved the DOJ's two-year extension request [JURIST report; joint status report], which Microsoft had agreed to, during a status conference in US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website].

The DOJ said the extension was necessary [press release] because Microsoft has been slow to improve the technical documentation it provides to licensees of communication protocols for the Windows operating system. As part of the extension, Microsoft has said that it plans to create an "interoperability lab" [press release] where licensees can test and de-bug their protocols with help from Microsoft engineers.

CNET News has more.

Friday, April 21, 2006
Gonzales pushes data retention to help child pornography investigations
Jeannie Shawl at 8:32 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] said Thursday that the failure of Internet service providers to retain user records has impeded US Justice Department investigations into child pornography and said that the department is looking into setting "reasonable" data retention standards. In a speech [text] at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said:

The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers. This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, the failure of some Internet service providers to keep records has hampered our ability to conduct investigations in this area.

As a result, I have asked the appropriate experts at the Department to examine this issue and provide me with proposed recommendations. And I am going to reach out personally to the CEOs of the leading service providers and to other industry leaders to solicit their input and assistance.

Record retention by Internet service providers consistent with the legitimate privacy rights of Americans, is an issue that must be addressed.

Under the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act [text], ISPs are only required to keep records for 90 days if requested by the government to do so. Members of Congress, including Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) [official website] have also said they would support legislation mandating data retention [CNET report].

Earlier this year, the European Union approved [JURIST report] a controversial directive [PDF text] which requires EU member states to adopt measures to provide for the retention of citizens' phone call and Internet service data for a period of between six to 24 months. The EU measure, though intended in part to crackdown on pedophiles, is largely designed to track down terrorists and criminal gangs.

CNET News has more.

Friday, April 21, 2006
Gonzales pushes data retention to help child pornography investigations
Jeannie Shawl at 8:32 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] said Thursday that the failure of Internet service providers to retain user records has impeded US Justice Department investigations into child pornography and said that the department is looking into setting "reasonable" data retention standards. In a speech [text] at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said:

The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers. This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, the failure of some Internet service providers to keep records has hampered our ability to conduct investigations in this area.

As a result, I have asked the appropriate experts at the Department to examine this issue and provide me with proposed recommendations. And I am going to reach out personally to the CEOs of the leading service providers and to other industry leaders to solicit their input and assistance.

Record retention by Internet service providers consistent with the legitimate privacy rights of Americans, is an issue that must be addressed.

Under the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act [text], ISPs are only required to keep records for 90 days if requested by the government to do so. Members of Congress, including Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) [official website] have also said they would support legislation mandating data retention [CNET report].

Earlier this year, the European Union approved [JURIST report] a controversial directive [PDF text] which requires EU member states to adopt measures to provide for the retention of citizens' phone call and Internet service data for a period of between six to 24 months. The EU measure, though intended in part to crackdown on pedophiles, is largely designed to track down terrorists and criminal gangs.

CNET News has more.

the truth is definitely out there. in every sense of the words 'out' and 'there'.

the us doj, in answer to questions from both sides of politics on the house judiciary committee (something like our house of reps standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs) regarding the legality of the nsa's warrantless wiretapping responded "of course they're legal. even if they breach client legal privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, they're legal and it's all admissible in court. coz we said so. oh, and we don;t have to answer any more of your questions, coz of national security. nyah!"

meanwhile, a us federal magistrate told the bush administration that it cannot stop lawyers from seeing their clients at guantanamo bay. the us executive have been playing the same kind of games our government plays with it's own (immigration) detainees. but hey, they're being detained legitimately, right, so why should they be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detention? *facepalm*

justice scalia, meanwhile, had made his bias against guantanamo detainees pretty clear in a recent speech at a university in switzerland. i wonder if he'll excuse himself from hearing a relevant case this time ...

the truth is definitely out there. in every sense of the words 'out' and 'there'.

the us doj, in answer to questions from both sides of politics on the house judiciary committee (something like our house of reps standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs) regarding the legality of the nsa's warrantless wiretapping responded "of course they're legal. even if they breach client legal privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, they're legal and it's all admissible in court. coz we said so. oh, and we don;t have to answer any more of your questions, coz of national security. nyah!"

meanwhile, a us federal magistrate told the bush administration that it cannot stop lawyers from seeing their clients at guantanamo bay. the us executive have been playing the same kind of games our government plays with it's own (immigration) detainees. but hey, they're being detained legitimately, right, so why should they be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detention? *facepalm*

justice scalia, meanwhile, had made his bias against guantanamo detainees pretty clear in a recent speech at a university in switzerland. i wonder if he'll excuse himself from hearing a relevant case this time ...