Telecom Collaborated with NSA to Spy on Customers
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing
the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of
its customers by collaborating with the National Security
Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap
and data-mine Americans' communications.
The NSA program came to light in December, when the New
York Times reported that the President had authorized the
agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications
inside the United States without the authorization of any
court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the
NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of
Americans' communications, with the help of the country's
largest phone and Internet companies.
Reporting has also indicated that those same companies--and
AT&T specifically--have given the NSA direct access to
their vast databases of communications records, including
information about whom their customers have phoned or
emailed with in the past. And yet little has been
accomplished by this illegal spying: recent reports have
shown that the data from this wholesale surveillance has
done little more than waste FBI resources on dead leads.
"The NSA program is apparently the biggest fishing
expedition ever devised, scanning millions of ordinary
Americans' phone calls and emails for 'suspicious'
patterns, and it's the collaboration of US telecom
companies like AT&T that makes it possible," said EFF Staff
Attorney Kevin Bankston. "When the government defends
spying on Americans by saying, 'If you're talking to
terrorists we want to know about it,' that's not even close
to the whole story."
In the lawsuit, EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to
allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet
communications passing over its network, has given the
government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte
"Daytona" database of caller information--one of the
largest databases in the world.
"AT&T's customers reasonably expect that their
communications are private and have long trusted AT&T to
follow the law and protect that privacy. Unfortunately,
AT&T has betrayed that trust," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Lee Tien. "At the NSA's request, AT&T eviscerated
the legal safeguards required by Congress and the courts
with a keystroke."
By opening its network and databases to unrestricted spying
by the government, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the
privacy of AT&T customers and the people they call and
email, as well as broken longstanding communications
privacy laws.
While other organizations are suing the government
directly, EFF is seeking to protect Americans' privacy by
stopping the collaboration of AT&T with the illegal NSA
spying program and making it economically impossible for
AT&T to continue to give its customers' information to the
government.
"Congress has set up strong laws protecting the privacy of
your communications, strictly limiting when telephone and
Internet companies can subject your phone calls to
government scrutiny," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.
"The companies that have betrayed their customers' trust by
illegally handing the NSA direct access to their networks
and databases must be brought to account. AT&T needs to put
a sign on its door that reads, 'Come Back With a Warrant.'"
In the suit filed Tuesday, EFF is representing the class of
all AT&T customers nationwide. EFF is seeking an
injunction to stop AT&T participation in the illegal NSA
program, as well as billions of dollars in damages for
violation of federal privacy laws. Working with EFF in the
lawsuit are the law firms Traber & Voorhees, and Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.
For the full complaint:
<
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/att-complaint.pdf>
For more on EFF's suit:
<
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/>
For this release:
<
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php#004369>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Supreme Court Tackles Dangerous Patent Ruling
EFF Asks Justices to Consider Critical Free-Speech
Implications
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States
Supreme Court Thursday, asking justices to overturn a court
ruling in a patent case with dangerous implications for
free speech and consumers' rights. The Public Patent
Foundation, the American Library Association, the American
Association of Law Libraries, and the Special Library
Association joined EFF on the brief.
At issue is a case involving online auctioneer eBay and a
company called MercExchange. Last year, the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that eBay violated
MercExchange's online auction patents and that eBay could
be permanently enjoined, or prohibited, from using the
patented technology. But as part of the ruling, the court
came to a perilous conclusion, holding that patentees who
prove their case have a right to permanent injunctions
under all but "exceptional circumstances," like a major
public health crisis. This radical rule created an
"automatic injunction" standard that ignored the
traditional balancing and discretion used by judges to
consider how such a decision might affect other public
interests--including free speech online.
"As more and more people use software and Internet
technology to express themselves online, the battle over
software patents has grave implications for online speech,"
said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Courts must
work harder than ever to ensure that technologies like
blogs, email, online video, and instant messaging remain
free and available to the public."
The lower court's ruling stems in part from a misperception
that patents are just like other forms of property, with
the same rights and remedies. However, Supreme Court
rulings have repeatedly emphasized that patents are a
unique form of property, designed to achieve a specific
public purpose: the promotion of scientific and industrial
progress.
"Part of the court's duty in patent cases is to make sure
that the system helps the public's right to free speech
instead of hurting it," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason
Schultz. "If this ruling is allowed to stand, courts won't
be able to do what's right."
For the full brief:
<
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ebay_v_mercexchange/eff_amicus_brief.pdf
>
For more on patents and how bad law can hurt the public:
<
http://www.eff.org/patent>
For this release:
<
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php#004346>
