8 ms·
Obama, NSA, Verizon and DoJ sued for $3B over PRISM
- dvt 13y agoPretty amusing, although it's (obviously) going to be thrown out.
- ParkerK 13y agoWhile there's a high possibility of that, hopefully if enough people care about the issue, the public backlash could (in a perfect world) lead to the case being looked at
- adventured 13y agoYou're definitely correct, but I like this part: "Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor" The more current or former DC insiders fight against what's going on the better.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y ago> The more current or former DC insiders fight against what's going on the better. Klayman was never a real insider. He was an AUSA -- far from a significant insider -- in the Reagan Administration, and has spent most of the time since in one lawsuit or another, either against Democrats, against private organizations he perceived of taking insufficiently conservative political actions, or against the first of the "watchdog" groups he founded (Judicial Watch).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hawkharris 13y agoWhy do you think it will obviously be thrown out? (I'm not being argumentative; I'm really curious, though I didn't read the entire legal document.)
- cpleppert 13y agoFor starters, it names the President as a defendant EDIT: originally was plaintiff, dunno how that happened. Thanks
- rayiner 13y agoYou mean as a defendant? Nothing stops you from suing the President in his capacity as a public official. The usual remedy, though, is an injunction, but under Bivens you can seek damages (as is being done here). E.g. Rasul v. George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush).
- dvt 13y agoThe usual remedy (like 99% of the time) is the case being thrown out ;)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 13y agoGiven the guy is a former DOJ prosecutor, I think he's probably done his homework. I think it's highly doubtful that the claim will succeed on the merits (because its probably legal), but I think the possibility of reaching a decision on the merits is non-zero. I mean looking cursorily at the filing, a Bivens action is the right vehicle for this. Anybody with some more insight want to tell me why it won't work?
- irishcoffee 13y agoSe seen below: > In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite....
- rayiner 13y agoThe suit isn't against the government, it's against various officials. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag.... Sovereign immunity prevents you from suing the government, in its capacity as the government, unless it consents to the suit. It does not prevent you from suing public officials either for an injunction, or in limited cases (as in Bivens) for damages.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoIt specifically names the NSA and the DOJ as defendants. So while that is not against "The Government" as some single entity, it is against two government agencies. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that is different. But as a lay-person, that sounds like suing the government to me.
- mpyne 13y agoBargaining units have been known to sue government agencies. I'm not sure whether that's under a provision of law where the government consents to be sued, or whether it's because you can sue a specific agency.
- msandford 13y agoThe fact that a former DOJ prosecutor is pursuing this is a very good sign. I am very happy that it's someone whose credentials cannot be called into question. I still think it stands no chance at all but it's great to see it happening. I wonder what would stop say a good 2/3 of the country from jumping in on this case? I know I haven't personally used Verizon as I don't have a contract with them but I'm sure my calls have been snooped on since I can't help but call people who do have Verizon contracts.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 13y agoThis kind of sums up HN's analysis of what's happening for me: a comment that says Larry Klayman's credentials cannot be called into question. Sorry for singling you out.
- msandford 13y agoSo I should have made a comment that had a greater depth of thought to it? If you want to tell me that I'm wrong go right ahead. But could you at least tell me why I'm wrong? EDIT ADDED THIS: Also I guess I think that his credentials -- in this case -- are a big deal. Anyone can sue anyone for anything at all and it's up to the courts to quash all the bullshit lawsuits. Since lawsuits cost money to file (if you're not a lawyer) or time (which is money if you are a lawyer) the millions and billions of frivolous lawsuits that could be filed generally aren't. Obviously this guy could be filing a totally bogus lawsuit just for the publicity but that scenario seems much more likely if he wasn't a former DOJ lawyer. EDIT AGAIN: Just saw that this guy's deal is nuisance lawsuits. Bummer. I was hoping this was a real thing that would get legs.
- rosser 13y agoAnd it's the content of your EDIT AGAIN to which tptacek was referring. If people had looked more deeply than "former DOJ prosecutor", as you put it, into this whackadoo's history, they'd have seen this isn't much of a thing.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoPerfect. And then when they lose and need to pay a bunch of lawyers $3B, someone will go shake the money tree and a bunch of tax payers will fall out to foot the bill.
- ParkerK 13y agoNo, ideally when they lose, the judicial branch will call for the closure of the PRISM program and citizen's rights will be restored.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoSure. But closure of PRISM and restored rights have no bearing on who pays the $3B or the fact that lawyers will see most of it (which is the case with most class actions).
- ParkerK 13y agoPRISM costs $20 billion USD per year, if I recall correctly. So that $3 billion, which is already minuscule in comparison to the federal budget, could actually be $17 billion saved.
- rayiner 13y ago$20 million, not billion.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoso a $3B judgement would be enough to run PRISM for 150 years. Well... let's say 100 years to account for inflation and adding more backdoors and secret decoder rings.
- jlgreco 13y agoIf that bothers the taxpayers, then perhaps they should be more careful in the voting booths next time.
- downandout 13y agoFormer AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) or not, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client". Might be entertaining though. He may at least get a headline or two when it is thrown out, which will be good because this whole thing will die from the headlines in about a week, and the vast majority of Americans will go back to being blissfully ignorant.
- olympus 13y agoRemember, you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you. If the powers that be decide that they are immune, then they are. If they decide to give immunity to Verizon for complying with government orders then poof! they have immunity. It's a noble idea, but the courts will not solve this issue. I think ultimately the government will not be able to fix itself, one branch cannot fix another branch.
- pcvarmint 13y agoWhich is maybe why it needs to go before a jury. Civil trials aren't guaranteed to have a trial by jury, but maybe if the government is one of the parties, the other party should be able to demand a trial by jury. Of course juries are not as independent as they should be, with jurors being kicked out for not following judges orders, or verdicts being thrown out by the judge, or juries being intimidated by judges into ruling a certain way.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 13y agoYes and no. Sovereign immunity is more complex than you're making it out to be, and cannot be delegated, either to public officials or to companies.
- olympus 13y agoRayiner, you're confusing legal concepts with reality. Remember that AT&T was granted immunity by Congress for the room 641A fiasco. So even if you can't meet the legal standards for sovereign immunity the system will still protect itself. Nobody is going to jail for this except for Snowden.
- rayiner 13y agoYou're handwaving, throwing around terms in a paranoid fit. AT&T was granted immunity for violations of FISA by Congress. It was FISA that created the basis for the suit against AT&T in the first place, so it was just Congress making something not illegal that it had made illegal. In bad taste, but not anything that has to do with sovereign immunity or inherent immunity from suits. I don't think Snowden should go to prison, but if he does it's because he's the only one who did anything illegal. There's nothing illegal, under the FISA Amendments Act, about AT&T or Verizon sharing the information they collect about your usage of their networks. The default presumption is that you're allowed to share information in your possession, unless restricted by some law. HIPAA protects medical records, FERPA protects educational records, etc, and FISA/ECPA protects electronic communications in certain circumstances, but the monitoring programs here, as far as we know, are written to avoid running up against these laws.
- nolite 13y agoWhy is Bush missing from this?
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Why is Bush missing from this? Because its not a real lawsuit that is intended to win, its a propaganda piece designed to get attention for the theory that the Verizon metadata capture is an act targetted against Obama's domestic political opponents, which is why the suit highlights the named defendants (including the one who is also the attorney filing the case) strident criticisms of the President as the basis for the conclusion that they were surveilled (not just their metadata, but their actual conversations) by the NSA as part of the program.
- tptacek 13y agoBy Larry Klayman, of Judicial Watch; a fringe political group just a tier above Orly Taitz. Read his history (he was all over the spotlight in the '90s during the Clinton administration) before jumping to the conclusion that this is the start of something meaningful.
- gohrt 13y ago[EDIT: OK, it appears that Wikipedia is more charitable than other sites in choosing with of Klayman's efforts to highlight. Mea culpa.] Klayman is severely partisan, for sure, but is there any evidence that he deals in falsehoods? Yes, sadly, the most energetic fighters are fighting one one side, instead of justice in generally. But I'd rather have Klayman attacking Democrats for legitimate gripes, and Larry Flynt attacking Republicans for legitimate gripes, than practically getting nothing done because EFF is too boring to get support and non-partisans never get enough influence in general.
- tptacek 13y ago"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages."
- rpgmaker 13y agoThe EFF is not boring. You're very mistaken.
- dnautics 13y agoimmaterial. He said "too boring to get support". Presumably he meant "too boring to get [across the board] support [from citizens of all walks in the nation]". I say this, as a supporter of the EFF.
- tokenizer 13y agoAs a Canadian who is seriously concerned about this political issue in your country which affects me, I have to ask, why are you bringing character into this? And also, why does his character matter if the intentions are good?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- aet 13y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
- jemfinch 13y agoI stopped reading at "Barack Hussein Obama." That name is the clearest signal of ideological intellectual dishonesty that I've yet found.
- dangrossman 13y agoIs it not customary to use someone's full name when naming them in a lawsuit? Or are you not aware that this is the US President's legal name?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jemfinch 13y agoIt's customary to use the name someone uses for himself. He refers to himself as "Barack Obama". What's Larry Klayman's middle name? It's not in the docket. What's Keith B. Alexander's middle name? It's not in the docket. What's Lowell C. McAdam's middle name? It's not in the docket. And each of those names are more common (and thus more likely to be ambiguous) than Obama's. Outside of his swearing in (where middle names are customary even when they're not typically used in self-reference), the only time anyone says "Barack Hussein Obama" is when they're ideologues.
- evanmoran 13y agoTo be fair in the very same sentence they name several people without full middle names: "Plaintiffs hereby sue Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Holder, Keith B. Alexander, Lowell McAdam, Roger Vinson". Emphasizing Hussein seems pretty intensional. EDIT: In fact, looking further: Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. probably isn't legal without the Jr. And Clyde Roger Vinson was missing the entire first name. Lowell C. McAdam and Keith B. Alexander, clearly have middle names, even if I can't find them in a 5 second google search. Basically they used the common public names for everyone but Obama.
- corwinstephen 13y agoSomehow I have a feeling jemfinch really didn't know that was his middle name.
- howard610 13y agoUm ... for PRISM, shouldn't they be suing Google, Facebook, Apple, etc?
- ParkerK 13y agoGoogle, Face, Apple, etc have to comply with law enforcement, so the point of the lawsuit is to end the program that's forcing them to cooperate under such vague circumstances.
- jholman 13y agoPlease change the obviously-incorrect title. PRISM is not involved in this suit. The suit is about the gathering of Verizon metadata. PRISM, as it has been publically alleged, has nothing to do with this. PRISM is an alleged program that involves SiVa tech companies, and involves spending $20 M to magically ingest, sort, and dispense basically all the traffic of half a dozen of the biggest IT companies in the world. (In case my bias wasn't clear, I don't think that's possible to do with $20M.) Note that the word "prism" appears nowhere in the legal document. Because Larry Klayman has the basic literacy skills to keep apples and oranges distinct, unlike the scribd uploader.
- ezl 13y agooh come on, if you're going to sue Obama, NSA, Verizon, and DoJ, go for broke: $TEXAS.
- littletables 13y agoI'd say it's safe to say that Klayman is 'functionally insane.' http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-jews-behind-gay-marriage-irs-scandal http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-jews-behind-ga... It's a very reasoned argument he makes, the one where Jews are to blame for gay marriage. No. No, it's actually not. It's pretty crazy. It sucks that this is the first lawsuit.
- coolj 13y agoI had never heard of this guy before this thread, but the original article cites Joe Bidan claiming Jewish industry leaders brought about changing perceptions of gay marriage: > Indeed, just last week, Vice President Joe Biden praised so-called Jewish leaders in Hollywood and elsewhere for promoting gay marriage and other leftist causes, stating at a reception hosted by the Democratic National Committee, "Think of all that. I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether its in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense ... and I might add, it is all to the good." The article you cite removes this context and starts quoting at the very next paragraph, as if the Klayman guy is just saying it, rather than repeating Biden. (He may very well be saying it himself, I'm not familiar with him, but that kind of misrepresentation should be called out in any case.)
- Sealy 13y agoIts going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Its an exciting episode in the new technological age of 'freedom of speech'
- nutate 13y agoQuick search for telecom immunity shows me that hn forgot that Verizon, et al are exempt from such prosecutions after the GOP pushed for said immunity in the late aughts. That was a good fight the dems put up against this sort of thing, but alas. Not to mention the fact that no laws seem to have been broken, only the heart of a libertarian redditor.