Judge questions secrecy claims: AT&T seeks a shield from suit challenging possible aid to U.S. anti-terror spying.
Welcome to TMCnet.com
WIMAX.TMCnet.com – Coming May 2008 |    ITEXPO West begins in:   Register Now!
Columnists:
E-mail this page to a friend Order reprints online Print this page Trackback - Pingback Bookmark this page Free magazines Free newsletters RSS-XML alerts
Digg this article!

[June 25, 2006]

Judge questions secrecy claims: AT&T seeks a shield from suit challenging possible aid to U.S. anti-terror spying.

(Sacramento Bee, The (CA) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Jun. 24--SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge expressed doubts Friday that AT&T's cooperation with the National Security Agency in spying on customer phone calls and e-mails would be a "state secret" that would have to be shielded completely from public or court scrutiny.



U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker took issue with assertions that mere acknowledgment of the unconfirmed -- but widely reported -- electronic surveillance program would give terrorists a tactical advantage, put AT&T installations abroad at risk and make other telecommunications companies wary of turning over data.

"The state-secret privilege is not unlimited," Walker told a government lawyer, seeming to reject the broadest argument in favor of throwing out a suit by customers against AT&T.



The government was not named as a defendant but has joined the company in moving to have the case dismissed.

At issue in the case are allegations that "AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and, or other government agencies," according to the legal complaint. It contends the company has intercepted and disclosed "the contents of its customers' communications" and millions of customer records.

The suit alleges the program may have been authorized by President Bush as early as 2001, and is ongoing. Similar suits have been filed across the country.

In a three-hour hearing, Walker reserved his ruling on the dismissal motions, and he appeared to play devil's advocate, baiting lawyers on all sides.

But he directly challenged the government's position that vital national interests inevitably would be compromised if the suit were allowed to proceed.

The rule commonly followed, he said, is that sensitive surveillance matters may be reviewed in private by a judge, who may then turn over portions to attorneys representing litigants.

"We have a balance somewhere. Now where is this?" he asked.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler said the president, acting on intelligence information, has the authority to make the call.

The customers are represented in court by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that promotes electronic privacy. The suit is one of about two dozen, some targeting the NSA and some the telecommunications industry, filed in recent months to challenge confirmed or reported domestic surveillance programs.

The state-secrets issue also is prominent in a motion for summary judgment in federal court in Detroit, where the American Civil Liberties Union is contesting international wiretapping acknowledged by Bush.

Also under way in California are two ACLU suits over reported disclosure of residential phone records. They name AT&T and Verizon and were filed under state privacy laws.

Another suit against AT&T and affiliated companies, citing federal laws and California's unfair competition law, is pending before Walker.

Arguing on behalf of AT&T at Friday's hearing, lawyer Bradford Berenson said the company has immunity from being sued when it complies with a lawful government request for data.

He described AT&T as "just a passive instrument of the government ... a tool that the government is using."

If customers have a dispute, it's with the government and not the company, he argued.

Walker questioned, though, whether AT&T would be immune from suit if it failed to make proper inquiries about the legality of a government data request, or if it "connived with the government" in a program it should have known was unlawful.

Walker also closely quizzed plaintiffs' lawyer Kevin Bankston, asking: Did the phone company have a duty to assess the legality of a government surveillance program?

It did in this case, said Bankston, because the program was "plainly in violation" of telecommunications privacy laws.

[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]


Digg this article!

Discussions:
Be the first to post a comment on this page!
 
By  
TMCnet

E-mail this page to a friend Order reprints online Print this page Trackback - Pingback Bookmark this page Free magazines Free newsletters RSS-XML alerts
  2008 TMC Labs Innovation Award Call for Entries From INTERNET TELEPHONY Magazine
  2008 TMC Labs Innovation Award Winners Announced by Unified Communications Magazine
  Speech Technology Excellence Award Entries Open
  TMCnet Welcomes Rick Bye as Newest Columnist
  TMC Names Best of Show Winners of INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference & EXPO East 2008
  Interactive Intelligence Receives Record Page Views on Highest Trafficked Contact Center Site on the Web
  Call for Entries for the IP Contact Center Technology Pioneer Award Presented by Customer Interaction Solutions Magazine
  Bob Emmerson Joins TMC as New European Editor
  New Podcast Library Launched On TMCnet
  TMC Announces 100 Sponsored Communities Now Live on TMCnet
  VoIP & Communications Developers - We've heard you
  2008 CRM Excellence Awards Winners Announced by Customer Interaction Solutions Magazine
  TMC Promotes Kevin Kiley to VP of Finance; Announces Other Staff Appointments
  TMCnet Welcomes Dan Miller as a Featured Monthly Columnist
  TMC's Unified Communications Magazine Announces 2007 Product of the Year Award Winners




TMC's Customized Keymail Alert and RSS Service Usage Instructions
 To receive daily e-mail alerts and RSS URLs of stories posted on TMCnet.com, please enter keyword terms to match and your e-mail address.  
Keyword 1:
Keyword 2:
Keyword 3:
 
E-mail Address:

Search terms are case-insensitive.

Enclose in double-quotes for exact phrase match.

No password necessary!

Latest TMCnet Headlines

Latest Company News
Subscribe FREE to all of TMC's monthly magazines. Click here now.
TMC LOGO
Technology Marketing Corporation,
One Technology Plaza, Norwalk, CT 06854 USA
Ph: 800-243-6002, 203-852-6800; Fx: 203-866-3326
General comments: tmc@tmcnet.com. Comments about this site: webmaster@tmcnet.com.
About   Contact  Advertise
Technology Marketing Corp. 1997-2008 Copyright. Privacy Policy Sitemap
Advanced  
















close [x]