[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Disclaimer Update

Thus spake Watson Ladd (watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx):

> Thus Spake Mike Perry
> >I suppose they probably will try to claim in EFF v AT&T that they
> >DO have probable cause to tap the Internet traffic of the entire
> >west coast... But of course that claim is classified, so none of us
> >(nor even EFF) will get to see it. Genius and insanity oft go hand
> >in hand.

> Civil cases can be discarded if the government gets the judge to  
> agree that secrecy requirements are hampering the government's case.   
> If they didn't have probable cause, they will say "Oh, its  
> classified" and get the case dismissed. I am not a lawyer, but it  
> looks like you are screwed out of the server either way. You should  
> consult a lawyer to determine what your status is.  Or you could wait  
> until the server gets taken.

Oh yeah, I'm very much aware of this. This is what I was referring to
in the preceding paragraph (the last paragraph of my post). The cases
listed in


are quite horrifying indeed (esp Maher Arar and Sibel Edmonds).

> >But as we know, the US government doesn't seem to be too fond of
> >following the law anymore. So there's always that element of risk.
> There is also the risk that they seize your server and get a FISA  
> warrant three days later.

It would seem that they could not in good faith make the claim that
their search would yield evidence sought against a Tor node, even
(or especially) after the fact.

I agree that the insanity of secrecy surrounding the courts
essentially means that you cannot expect to make such an argument
after the fact anymore and have any guarantee that it will be heard
properly, because the government seems to be just using secrecy to
conceal neglegence and incompetence now. So I think the best course of
action is to try to make the argument first in public, before it
escalates into secrecy and you disappear.

Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs