Re: [privacy] AT&T 'Spy Room' Documents Unsealed

["Matthew Murphy" <mattmurphy () kc rr com>]

On 6/13/07, Fergie <fergdawg () netzero net> wrote:
> - -- ge () linuxbox org wrote:
> > Guys, we need to remember that if ISPs are to actually comply with
> > "legal requests" they need to have an infrastructure to enable it,
> > otherwise it is total hell.
>
> This is NOT about legal requests -- this is about something that is
> arguably illegal.
>
> Read the article.

What I think Gadi means is that it's entirely reasonable for a
surveillance infrastructure to exist, as AT&T would require one to
comply with the law (CALEA, et al).  Therefore, the mere existence of
a surveillance infrastructure (purpose unclarified) at AT&T does not
necessarily mean that *illegal* or *extra-judicial* surveillance was
taking place.  It does seem at first glance that the documents
originally "leaked" by Wired are, at best, soft on evidence that the
surveillance equipment deployed is for illegal purposes.

The government should not be hiding behind state secrets and neither
should AT&T, but ironically, the fact that they are is why we cannot
discount the possibility of entirely legal action on AT&T's part.  I'm
not holding my breath, but the possibility is nonetheless real.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy