12 ms·

Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

230 points by abbe98 7y ago

kick 7y ago
Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosures of privileged state secrets, an outcome prohibited under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. "Thus, the case must be dismissed, and judgment must be entered in favor of defendants." Ellis is a traitor in the legal sense of the word, and (though it's been obvious for a while) the court systems are broken. Formerly, Ellis has similarly sided with the CIA against Khalid El-Masri, a man who was "allegedly" tortured by the CIA, despite being fully aware justice wasn't being dealt. To quote him: "If El-Masri's allegations are true or essentially true, then all fair-minded people, including those who believe that state secrets must be protected, that this lawsuit cannot proceed, and that renditions are a necessary step to take in this war, must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy." https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/day-court-denied-victim-cia-kidnapping-and-rendition-khaled-el-masri https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/day-court-denied-victim-... Given that the Judicial Branch can be considered compromised, the Executive Branch is the one being accused, and the Legislative Branch allowed this to happen to begin with, everyone should act as if the U.S. government is a hostile, compromised actor. Don't attack it, but defend yourself. Avoid allowing proprietary software from touching any of your secrets (ideally go for software created by foreigners). Keep your communications safe and encrypted. Standard stuff, but there's more of an incentive to use it, now.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  HN thinks about hiring and pipeline processes which lead to signal in orgs, but little about the US justice system seems to inspire faith that they are up to the task of promoting their best to the judicial hierarchy. Instead we should expect that the best legal minds are consultants for corporations.
- corndoge 7y ago
  I read that quote as Ellis siding with El-Masri (notwithstanding that he still ruled invocation of state secrets as valid) - how do you read it?
  - kick 7y ago
    He knows the CIA did something illegal, but is protecting them. If a mafia member shoots an innocent man, and a judge says "I feel bad for the guy, but the mafia is good for this city, so no can do; yunz are screwed!" it's fairly obvious what's happening. He's preventing criminals from feeling the consequences of the law because of perceived value.
    - corndoge 7y ago
      No, he's upholding the law, whether he agrees with it or not, which is his job. A judge's job is to adjudicate based on the law and he adjudicated that states secrets was lawfully invoked.
      - kick 7y ago
        The Constitution comes before every other law, and allowing the Constitution to be waived is against his job.
  - auiya 7y ago
    I read it the same way, and I don't see how one would read it any other way? Removing the qualifiers - "If El-Masri's allegations are true [..], then all fair-minded people[..], must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy."
    - monocasa 7y ago
      The quote there is just the recognition by him that the CIA committed crimes. The context of the rest of the decision still finding for the CIA is the half that you're missing.
- collinstevens 7y ago
  Feels so hopeless.
  - kick 7y ago
    It's not hopeless, though those without faith will probably find another country more enjoyable for the near future.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yellow_lead 7y ago
I have been thinking about these types of cases lately. It seems like any proof can be dismissed by three letter agencies with them using their "state secret" card as evidence to the contrary. i.e We have evidence to the contrary but you cannot see it. Darn, guess the case can't proceed.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  In cases where the state has evidence that it can not show the case should proceed as if such evidence does not exist.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    The state has an advantage here. They can use evidence that can't be presented in court to construct a case in parallel. That is, after enough surveillance, they'll know when to expect e.g. a conversation that will appear incriminating when stripped of context. They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation. If this scheme doesn't work the first time, they'll repeat until it does work. Now they don't have to admit they were just snooping on all people everywhere when the defendant first attracted their attention. On the other side, when defendants need evidence the government has, as in this case, they have no way to get that evidence.
    - justAnotherNET 7y ago
      Important caveat to your last point: the defendant has no access to secret exculpatory evidence
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      >They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation. The reason this works is because of the Good-faith exception[0]. The police acting on the tip, must investigate first. The investigation can lead to a finding which gains a search warrant. The executed warrant finds above and beyond the tip so The state is notified. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception
post_below 7y ago
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosures of privileged state secrets, an outcome prohibited under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent." This is why whistleblowers are so important. The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information.
- HenryKissinger 7y ago
  > The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
  - vkou 7y ago
    With the state secrets firewall, you have no idea whether or not you should change the composition of Congress.
  - nimbius 7y ago
    id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.
    - aphextim 7y ago
      >id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change. I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change. What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and then milking it with all the donations, re election groups and lobby groups funneling them money making it very hard to actually enact any real change. Even if one or two people make it to congress that are young and full of ideas/change they cannot get anything done because they are vastly outnumbered by the old fogies still writing policies like the 1950's.
mdszy 7y ago
State secrets should not exist.
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?
  - dublinben 7y ago
    Why not? What are you going to do with them? It requires nation-state level resources to even attempt to build them. Even states dedicated to developing them against the wishes of the international community (i.e. North Korea) have been barely successful.
    - criddell 7y ago
      It once required the smartest people utilizing resources from the wealthiest nations. 80 years later North Korea is making a pretty good effort. In another 80 years do you think it's unreasonable to think a wealthy individual might be able to build something? In other words, why would building an nuclear weapon not get easier?
      - catalogia 7y ago
        > In another 80 years do you think it's unreasonable to think a wealthy individual might be able to build something? They'd not be able to do it without the weapons grade material. The matter of getting that stuff isn't really a secret, it's just pretty expensive, takes a lot of time, and will be noticed by intelligence agencies. I don't see why any of that would change. The list of suspects will be short; anybody trying to refine U-235 would need huge quantities of natural uranium and a warehouse full of precision centrifuges. And anybody trying to create Pu-239 would need a nuclear reactor.
  - mdszy 7y ago
    1. Nukes shouldn't even be a thing anymore, we should have disarmed long ago. 2. You say this as if any rando could build a nuke in their garage if they just had the plans. 3. You say this as if any large enough private weapons contractor couldn't figure out how to build a nuke. So yes. They should.
naringas 7y ago
Does doing something seriously evil necessarily imply secrecy? I am thinking it might but I am not exactly sure why I think this. Ae there examples of evil things (known to be evil at their time) done in a widely public way? On the other hand, the converse is not true; this is far more straighforward: something secret is not necessarily evil In any case I have decided that I have to be EXTRA SUPER cautious that I am not complicity engaging in evil behavior whenever someone asks me to keep something secret. I don't think that secrecy is quite the same as privacy (not sure as to why), they are just very similar.
- dx87 7y ago
  I think game/app developers getting children hooked on gambling through lootboxes is evil, and that's out in the open. Luckily governments are starting to crack down on it.
  - naringas 7y ago
    It's very similiar to running a casino
cowbird 7y ago
How typically Authoritarian of T. S. Ellis. He repeatedly showed his Pro Trump bias in a recent trial of one of Trump's Henchmen. He should have been forced to retire then. Now he should be impeached.
lettergram 7y ago
Shouldn’t the Supreme Court weigh in on some of this stuff? IMO this is a constitutional issue of the highest magnitude.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  Isn't the problem that no evidence can be presented, even to the Supreme Court, because everything is marked super tip-top maximum secret? Clapper flat-out lied to congress, he even admitted he did later, and even the few congress members who knew he was lying could not do anything about it because the evidence was top secret.
  - lettergram 7y ago
    The argument needs to be made about the secrecy level. It’s really odd if the Supreme Court can’t rule on constitutional issues because “it’s secret”. Then there is no point in a constitution (which was my point)
jancsika 7y ago
Ooh, this is a tough one. I was initially going to inquire why someone like Binney, Drake, or Snowden couldn't just testify to the fact that they could retrieve results where the source data obviously was not (or could not have been) collected through one of the PRISM partners. But because of Wikipedia's general transparency, the gov't could just come claim that, say, the IP associated with the edit history was retrieved at the time of the search or something so it doesn't prove bulk collection. I guess you'd have to have a search that returns data clearly not public like the Wikipedia viewing habits associated with a given selector or set of selectors. E.g., something that necessitates having stored the bulk data at a previous point in time.
javajosh 7y ago
Being a fan of lightweight activism, I would like Wikimedia to please publish a list of sensitive articles, so that I can look at them occasionally or, better yet, write a browser extension that simulates looking through them that other people can run. The default state of government is totalitarian dictatorship; democracy is carved out of that rock every time we the people reserve a right for ourselves. Clearly the Judiciary has lost the ability to keep the Executive in check - and no, I don't think we need new laws here. The 4th Amendment is clearly being violated for every American. What intelligence is, what warfare is, has changed almost beyond recognition since the founding. Ubiquitous, computer mediated relationships, to an intelligence service, are achingly attractive. And yet, such a capability, which is embedded in the basic marble from which better government is carved, should not be used. I would have thought the 4th Amendment was enough, but clearly it is not. (It is with great sadness I admit that since ~40% of Americans cannot recognize the obvious threat an un-restrained Executive entails, so it seems unlikely that they would recognize this more subtle threat.)
- khawkins 7y ago
  I'm not a big fan of NSA surveillance, but given that you acknowledge this case is activism, it's concerning to me that the nonprofit built to sustain the allegedly unbiased encyclopedia Wikipedia is moving in the direction of political activism. Poor stewardship of Wikipedia is a far greater threat to democracy than what the NSA is doing, in my opinion. Wikipedia is literally writing the history book of the modern age, and the amount of power their administrators have over public thought cannot be underestimated enough. Sure, it's largely written by the "users", but an insulated class of administrators and super users largely decide which characterizations get to stay and which get removed. No doubt there are going to be abuses of power at Wikipedia, but activism like this makes it clear that Wikipedia has a bias, and the mandate is coming from the top down. Again, I don't think the activism itself is problematic but precisely who is doing it is the problem.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    That "insulated class of administrators" is unfortunately not enough, Wikipedia is being constantly modified to spread a specific agenda. I've caught a few occurrences but Wikipedia doesn't really have enough moderators watching over edits.
mindfulgeek 7y ago
Why can’t there be an independent party with top secret clearance do a code inspection and see if the hypothetical theory holds water? It seems like there should be a way to testify about it without compromising secrets.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  The problem is that those get stacked with defense hawks not civil liberty activists and you're back to square one.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    Pick twelve people uniformly at random from the US population and require them to be read in to all relevant clearances. This is a solved problem and has been since at least the 1700s.
brokenmachine 7y ago
This is how democracy dies. In secret.
fakegalitarian 7y ago
https://corruptionpedia.org/judge-david-ellis/ https://corruptionpedia.org/judge-david-ellis/ This judge?
ptah 7y ago
Can they not seal the court proceedings instead

230 points by abbe98 7y ago

kick 7y ago

Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosures of privileged state secrets, an outcome prohibited under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. "Thus, the case must be dismissed, and judgment must be entered in favor of defendants." Ellis is a traitor in the legal sense of the word, and (though it's been obvious for a while) the court systems are broken. Formerly, Ellis has similarly sided with the CIA against Khalid El-Masri, a man who was "allegedly" tortured by the CIA, despite being fully aware justice wasn't being dealt. To quote him: "If El-Masri's allegations are true or essentially true, then all fair-minded people, including those who believe that state secrets must be protected, that this lawsuit cannot proceed, and that renditions are a necessary step to take in this war, must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy." https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/day-court-denied-victim-cia-kidnapping-and-rendition-khaled-el-masri https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/day-court-denied-victim-... Given that the Judicial Branch can be considered compromised, the Executive Branch is the one being accused, and the Legislative Branch allowed this to happen to begin with, everyone should act as if the U.S. government is a hostile, compromised actor. Don't attack it, but defend yourself. Avoid allowing proprietary software from touching any of your secrets (ideally go for software created by foreigners). Keep your communications safe and encrypted. Standard stuff, but there's more of an incentive to use it, now.

threatofrain 7y ago
HN thinks about hiring and pipeline processes which lead to signal in orgs, but little about the US justice system seems to inspire faith that they are up to the task of promoting their best to the judicial hierarchy. Instead we should expect that the best legal minds are consultants for corporations.
corndoge 7y ago
I read that quote as Ellis siding with El-Masri (notwithstanding that he still ruled invocation of state secrets as valid) - how do you read it?
- kick 7y ago
  He knows the CIA did something illegal, but is protecting them. If a mafia member shoots an innocent man, and a judge says "I feel bad for the guy, but the mafia is good for this city, so no can do; yunz are screwed!" it's fairly obvious what's happening. He's preventing criminals from feeling the consequences of the law because of perceived value.
  - corndoge 7y ago
    No, he's upholding the law, whether he agrees with it or not, which is his job. A judge's job is to adjudicate based on the law and he adjudicated that states secrets was lawfully invoked.
    - kick 7y ago
      The Constitution comes before every other law, and allowing the Constitution to be waived is against his job.
- auiya 7y ago
  I read it the same way, and I don't see how one would read it any other way? Removing the qualifiers - "If El-Masri's allegations are true [..], then all fair-minded people[..], must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy."
  - monocasa 7y ago
    The quote there is just the recognition by him that the CIA committed crimes. The context of the rest of the decision still finding for the CIA is the half that you're missing.
collinstevens 7y ago
Feels so hopeless.
- kick 7y ago
  It's not hopeless, though those without faith will probably find another country more enjoyable for the near future.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

yellow_lead 7y ago

I have been thinking about these types of cases lately. It seems like any proof can be dismissed by three letter agencies with them using their "state secret" card as evidence to the contrary. i.e We have evidence to the contrary but you cannot see it. Darn, guess the case can't proceed.

jacquesm 7y ago
In cases where the state has evidence that it can not show the case should proceed as if such evidence does not exist.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  The state has an advantage here. They can use evidence that can't be presented in court to construct a case in parallel. That is, after enough surveillance, they'll know when to expect e.g. a conversation that will appear incriminating when stripped of context. They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation. If this scheme doesn't work the first time, they'll repeat until it does work. Now they don't have to admit they were just snooping on all people everywhere when the defendant first attracted their attention. On the other side, when defendants need evidence the government has, as in this case, they have no way to get that evidence.
  - justAnotherNET 7y ago
    Important caveat to your last point: the defendant has no access to secret exculpatory evidence
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    >They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation. The reason this works is because of the Good-faith exception[0]. The police acting on the tip, must investigate first. The investigation can lead to a finding which gains a search warrant. The executed warrant finds above and beyond the tip so The state is notified. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

post_below 7y ago

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosures of privileged state secrets, an outcome prohibited under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent." This is why whistleblowers are so important. The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information.

HenryKissinger 7y ago
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
- vkou 7y ago
  With the state secrets firewall, you have no idea whether or not you should change the composition of Congress.
- nimbius 7y ago
  id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.
  - aphextim 7y ago
    >id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change. I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change. What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and then milking it with all the donations, re election groups and lobby groups funneling them money making it very hard to actually enact any real change. Even if one or two people make it to congress that are young and full of ideas/change they cannot get anything done because they are vastly outnumbered by the old fogies still writing policies like the 1950's.

mdszy 7y ago

State secrets should not exist.

JaimeThompson 7y ago
So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?
- dublinben 7y ago
  Why not? What are you going to do with them? It requires nation-state level resources to even attempt to build them. Even states dedicated to developing them against the wishes of the international community (i.e. North Korea) have been barely successful.
  - criddell 7y ago
    It once required the smartest people utilizing resources from the wealthiest nations. 80 years later North Korea is making a pretty good effort. In another 80 years do you think it's unreasonable to think a wealthy individual might be able to build something? In other words, why would building an nuclear weapon not get easier?
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > In another 80 years do you think it's unreasonable to think a wealthy individual might be able to build something? They'd not be able to do it without the weapons grade material. The matter of getting that stuff isn't really a secret, it's just pretty expensive, takes a lot of time, and will be noticed by intelligence agencies. I don't see why any of that would change. The list of suspects will be short; anybody trying to refine U-235 would need huge quantities of natural uranium and a warehouse full of precision centrifuges. And anybody trying to create Pu-239 would need a nuclear reactor.
- mdszy 7y ago
  1. Nukes shouldn't even be a thing anymore, we should have disarmed long ago. 2. You say this as if any rando could build a nuke in their garage if they just had the plans. 3. You say this as if any large enough private weapons contractor couldn't figure out how to build a nuke. So yes. They should.

naringas 7y ago

Does doing something seriously evil necessarily imply secrecy? I am thinking it might but I am not exactly sure why I think this. Ae there examples of evil things (known to be evil at their time) done in a widely public way? On the other hand, the converse is not true; this is far more straighforward: something secret is not necessarily evil In any case I have decided that I have to be EXTRA SUPER cautious that I am not complicity engaging in evil behavior whenever someone asks me to keep something secret. I don't think that secrecy is quite the same as privacy (not sure as to why), they are just very similar.

dx87 7y ago
I think game/app developers getting children hooked on gambling through lootboxes is evil, and that's out in the open. Luckily governments are starting to crack down on it.
- naringas 7y ago
  It's very similiar to running a casino

cowbird 7y ago

How typically Authoritarian of T. S. Ellis. He repeatedly showed his Pro Trump bias in a recent trial of one of Trump's Henchmen. He should have been forced to retire then. Now he should be impeached.

lettergram 7y ago

Shouldn’t the Supreme Court weigh in on some of this stuff? IMO this is a constitutional issue of the highest magnitude.

brokenmachine 7y ago
Isn't the problem that no evidence can be presented, even to the Supreme Court, because everything is marked super tip-top maximum secret? Clapper flat-out lied to congress, he even admitted he did later, and even the few congress members who knew he was lying could not do anything about it because the evidence was top secret.
- lettergram 7y ago
  The argument needs to be made about the secrecy level. It’s really odd if the Supreme Court can’t rule on constitutional issues because “it’s secret”. Then there is no point in a constitution (which was my point)

jancsika 7y ago

Ooh, this is a tough one. I was initially going to inquire why someone like Binney, Drake, or Snowden couldn't just testify to the fact that they could retrieve results where the source data obviously was not (or could not have been) collected through one of the PRISM partners. But because of Wikipedia's general transparency, the gov't could just come claim that, say, the IP associated with the edit history was retrieved at the time of the search or something so it doesn't prove bulk collection. I guess you'd have to have a search that returns data clearly not public like the Wikipedia viewing habits associated with a given selector or set of selectors. E.g., something that necessitates having stored the bulk data at a previous point in time.

javajosh 7y ago

Being a fan of lightweight activism, I would like Wikimedia to please publish a list of sensitive articles, so that I can look at them occasionally or, better yet, write a browser extension that simulates looking through them that other people can run. The default state of government is totalitarian dictatorship; democracy is carved out of that rock every time we the people reserve a right for ourselves. Clearly the Judiciary has lost the ability to keep the Executive in check - and no, I don't think we need new laws here. The 4th Amendment is clearly being violated for every American. What intelligence is, what warfare is, has changed almost beyond recognition since the founding. Ubiquitous, computer mediated relationships, to an intelligence service, are achingly attractive. And yet, such a capability, which is embedded in the basic marble from which better government is carved, should not be used. I would have thought the 4th Amendment was enough, but clearly it is not. (It is with great sadness I admit that since ~40% of Americans cannot recognize the obvious threat an un-restrained Executive entails, so it seems unlikely that they would recognize this more subtle threat.)

khawkins 7y ago
I'm not a big fan of NSA surveillance, but given that you acknowledge this case is activism, it's concerning to me that the nonprofit built to sustain the allegedly unbiased encyclopedia Wikipedia is moving in the direction of political activism. Poor stewardship of Wikipedia is a far greater threat to democracy than what the NSA is doing, in my opinion. Wikipedia is literally writing the history book of the modern age, and the amount of power their administrators have over public thought cannot be underestimated enough. Sure, it's largely written by the "users", but an insulated class of administrators and super users largely decide which characterizations get to stay and which get removed. No doubt there are going to be abuses of power at Wikipedia, but activism like this makes it clear that Wikipedia has a bias, and the mandate is coming from the top down. Again, I don't think the activism itself is problematic but precisely who is doing it is the problem.
- Avamander 7y ago
  That "insulated class of administrators" is unfortunately not enough, Wikipedia is being constantly modified to spread a specific agenda. I've caught a few occurrences but Wikipedia doesn't really have enough moderators watching over edits.

mindfulgeek 7y ago

Why can’t there be an independent party with top secret clearance do a code inspection and see if the hypothetical theory holds water? It seems like there should be a way to testify about it without compromising secrets.

jethro_tell 7y ago
The problem is that those get stacked with defense hawks not civil liberty activists and you're back to square one.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  Pick twelve people uniformly at random from the US population and require them to be read in to all relevant clearances. This is a solved problem and has been since at least the 1700s.

brokenmachine 7y ago

This is how democracy dies. In secret.

fakegalitarian 7y ago

https://corruptionpedia.org/judge-david-ellis/ https://corruptionpedia.org/judge-david-ellis/ This judge?

ptah 7y ago

Can they not seal the court proceedings instead