Search
11 Charged In TJX, Other Breaches - Via Slashdot: Your Rights Online:
coondoggie writes "The Justice Department has charged 11 people in connection with the massive theft of credit card numbers from various retailers, including TJX, BJs and OfficeMax. Authorities say the group charged was involved in the theft of more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers. In an indictment returned today by a federal grand jury in Boston, Albert 'Segvec' Gonzalez, of Miami, was charged with computer fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy for his role in the scheme. Others indicted are from the US, Estonia, China, and Belarus." --- We've been following the TJX breach since the beginning.
Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws - Via Slashdot: Your Rights Online:
A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.
A federal court rejects Bush's "executive privilege" claims - Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald:
The Bush administration and its radical theories of executive power suffered yet another blow today from the judiciary, as a Federal District Judge, John D. Bates of the District of Columbia District Court -- a Bush 43-appointed (and generally very pro-Bush-administration) Judge as well as the former Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigations -- held in a 93-page ruling (.pdf) that Bush aides Harriet Miers (former White House counsel) and Josh Bolten (White House Chief of Staff) are not entitled to absolute immunity from Congressional subpoenas. The dispute arose out of the investigation by the House Judiciary Committee into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys who, in many cases, had either aggressively prosecuted GOP officials or had refused to prosecute Democrats or otherwise advance the GOP's political interests.
As part of its investigation, the Judiciary Committee issued Subpoenas to Miers and Bolten in an effort to find out, among other things, who actually made the decision for those U.S. attorneys to be fired. The subpoenas ordered Miers to appear before the Committee in order to testify, and ordered both to produce documents to the Committee. Both Miers and Bolten refused to comply with the Subpoenas. Miers simply failed to show up for her hearing, while Bolten refused to produce the demanded documents. They did so in reliance on the Bush administration‘s claim that both of them, as top-level aides to the President, enjoyed absolute immunity from Congressional subpoenas. It was that extremist theory which the court today rejected -- and rejected decisively and unequivocally. read more »
Senators Announce New Intellectual Property Enforcement Bill - Via EFF.org Updates:
Last week, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced the "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008," a bill that proposes a number of alarming changes to copyright law. The bill is the Senate's gift to big content owners, creating new and powerful tools -- many of which will be paid for by your tax dollars -- for the entertainment industry to go after infringers. But it doesn’t offer a lick of protection for legitimate innovators and technology users that may be buried by the copyright juggernaut.
One of the bill's most disturbing changes would give the Attorney General new powers to sue individuals on behalf of rightsholders like the MPAA and the RIAA. Bill proponents claim that these new powers, which would allow the AG to bring "milder" civil as well as criminal actions, are necessary because some offenses don’t rise to the level of criminal conduct. This justification just doesn’t make sense. If it’s a low-level offense, why should our top cops pursue it? read more »
Congress Should Demand Answers from Attorney General - Via American Civil Liberties Union:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON, DC - The American Civil Liberties Union urges the House Judiciary Committee to demand accountability from Attorney General Michael Mukasey during the Department of Justice oversight hearing scheduled for today.
"Mukasey was supposed to come in and clean up the Justice Department, but instead he seems to be intent on burying any evidence of wrongdoing by the Bush administration," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, "In addition to asking Congress to rubberstamp failed administration policies on torture and wiretapping, he's offered at least one new bad policy of his own by paving the way for the FBI to use racial and ethnic profiling as a factor in deciding whether to open up investigations," she said. read more »
Former DoJ Official Caught on Terror Watchlist - Via Threat Level:
If a former assistant U.S. attorney general has trouble getting his name off the government's terrorist watchlist, there's little hope the rest of us can succeed in doing so.
Jim Robinson, former head of the Justice Department's criminal division during the Clinton Administration, has a top-secret security clearance. But that hasn't prevented him from being hassled and delayed several hours each time he flies on a plane. That's because Robinson has a common name that he shares with someone who he believes was added to the watchlist in 2005.
"I suppose if I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it," Robinson said. "But I doubt it." read more »
Sixth Circuit Dodges Constitutional Question on Email Privacy; Warshak Case Dismissed on Procedural Grounds - Via EFF.org Updates:
Today, the full panel of Sixth Circuit judges dismissed [opinion] on procedural grounds the case of Warshak v. US, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of no-notice, warrantless searches of email stored by an email provider. A three-judge panel of Sixth Circuit judges had previously held, based in part on briefing by EFF, that the federal statute that authorized such searches of remote email accounts — the Stored Communications Act — violated the Fourth Amendment on its face.
It's a shame that the court refused to reach the critical question at the center of the Warshak case: does the Fourth Amendment require the government to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before secretly rifling through your Yahoo! mail or Gmail accounts? Without clear legal rulings on such issues, we face continued uncertainty about how the Constitution protects our private Internet communications, uncertainty that the government will continue to exploit. read more »
US Justice Dept. sued for info on cellular tracking practices - Via BetaNews >:
In purported efforts to help the public "understand the privacy risks of carrying a mobile phone," the ACLU and the EFF are suing the Justice Dept. for "documents, memos, and guides" about procedures used to track individuals through cell phones.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation aren't looking for money -- except to cover their own costs -- in their most recent lawsuit against the US Department of Justice. Instead, the two civil liberty advocacy groups want information about whether and how the government might be using the location capabilities in cell phones to find out where people are.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans -- over 200 million people -- carry mobile phones. This large number is steadily increasing. The information the ACLU seeks therefore bears on the privacy of a vast segment of the United States population," according to the complaint, which was submitted this week under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Recent court decisions and media reports reveal that US Attorneys Offices (USAOs) are assisting law enforcement officers in obtaining information from mobile carriers that enables officers to track the location of individuals' mobile phones," the document says. read more »
US Justice Dept. Sued For Cellular Tracking Information - Via Slashdot: Your Rights Online:
tpaudio writes "The ACLU and the EFF are suing the Department of Justice over how the government might be using GPS and location data from cell phones. With over 200 million Americans carrying cell phones, this could be pretty important for setting guidelines. We have already seen other frightening powers related to cell phones, such as 'cell mic tapping.'"---
The ACLU press release is also available, and it contains links to the complaint and the Freedom of Information Act request. We've previously discussed instances of cell phone tracking in the US and elsewhere.
What The New NSA Spying Decision Means for the Immunity Debate - Via EFF.org Updates:
As we reported yesterday, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California has just issued a key ruling in Al Haramain v. Bush, one of the cases challenging the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Judge Walker is also overseeing the consolidated litigation against the telecoms. With the Senate poised to vote on the FISA Amendments Act and immunity this Tuesday, this decision is particularly timely, as it demolishes key arguments made by proponents of telecom immunity:
Myth: The telecoms can't defend themselves in court because of the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege.
Fact: The Al Haramain decision makes clear that the state secrets privilege will not prevent the telecoms from defending themselves, because FISA's evidentiary procedures preempt the privilege. See Opinion at p. 2 ("FISA preempts the state secrets privilege in connection with electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.")
Myth: It's not fair to punish the telecoms for relying in good faith on the president's authorization to conduct the surveillance, even though it violated FISA. read more »
Baldwin stands up for Constitution - Via The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) :
There is an inclination, perhaps especially at the approach each year of the Fourth of July holiday, to believe the great struggles for freedom are a part of our history rather than the stuff of a current affairs quiz. But the Bush administration's attempt to rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in a manner that attacks our Fourth Amendment privacy rights confirms that the wisdom of Sam Adams remains as timeless as the promise of the American experiment.
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks," the old revolutionary warned at the inception of our national endeavor. "We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
What is to be celebrated with the greatest enthusiasm this Fourth of July is not the past, but the present. read more »
Rabble Rousers Post Subversive “Declaration” in NYT - Via Firedoglake :
A group of suspicious rabble rousers took out a half page ad in the New York Times Thursday, threatening to resist the normal workings of our government. I'm calling attention to this radical group, because if their subversive ideas ever catch on, our current system of government could be seriously threatened and dozens of officials run out of town.
Here's what the ad, which appeard on July 3, page A15, said, verbatim:
read more »
DoJ Policy Would Sanction Racial Profiling, Let FBI Target Americans Without Cause - Via Threat Level:
The Justice Department is considering establishing a new policy that would allow the FBI to target Americans for investigation even in the absence of evidence or other compelling indications that the person was breaking a law, according to the Associated Press.
The policy, being considered as part of the attorney general's guidelines to the FBI, would allow the agency to conduct racial profiling -- potentially singling out Muslim- and Arab-Americans -- and to open preliminary terrorism investigations against targets simply on the basis of patterns established through data mining public records and other information.
The agency would be allowed to profile targets based on their race and activities, such as travel to the Middle East or any other part of the world associated with terrorism. But race would be only one factor in the decision to open an investigation. read more »
Breaking News: Court Holds That FISA Preempts State Secret Privilege - Via EFF.org Updates:
New NSA Spying Decision Undermines Arguments for Telecom Immunity
Today, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California, issued an opinion in Al Haramain v. Bush, one of the cases challenging the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. The Court found that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) preempted the state secret privilege. This important decision is particularly timely, as it undermines key arguments for telecom immunity on the eve of the Senate vote on a FISA bill, set for next week.
The Court's Holding
The Al Haramain case alleges that the Bush Administration illegally targeted the leaders of an Islamic charity and their lawyers for warrantless surveillance by the NSA. Their claims are based on a secret document that was accidentally disclosed to the plaintiffs by the government that the plaintiffs allege demonstrates they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping (the contents of the document are tightly sealed as a state secret). read more »
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati