[cryptome] Re: EPIC v DOJ Case: Search and release of documents kept by the state pertaining to innocent individuals
- From: Edward Stevens <edwardstevens48@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:51:56 -0400
Unsubscribe me. Thanks. ES
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Douglas Rankine <
douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> See url: http://cryptome.org/2015/03/epic-wl-040-042.pdf
>
> Quote<<<
>
> - See url: *EPIC Partially Prevails in FOIA Case, Wikileaks
> Investigation Ongoing:* A federal judge has granted in part
> <https://epic.org/foia/doj/wikileaks/EPIC-v-DOJ-Wikileaks-Opinion.pdf>
> EPIC's motion for summary judgment
> <https://epic.org/foia/EPIC%20v.%20DOJ-wikileaks-OPPcross%20FINAL.pdf>
> in a FOIA case <https://epic.org/foia/doj/wikileaks/> about the
> government's surveillance of Wikileaks supporters. Three divisions of the
> Justice Department - the FBI, the National Security Division, and the
> Criminal Division - failed to provide any documents in response to EPIC's
> FOIA request. <https://epic.org/foia/EPIC-DOJ-WikileaksFOIA.PDF> The
> FBI stated that there was no surveillance of supporters and that an
> investigation was ongoing. Judge Rothstein sided with the FBI and the
> Criminal Division, but held that the National Security Division had failed
> to justify its withholdings. (Mar. 5, 2015)>>>end of quote.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wikileaks leak revealed that tabs were being kept on Appelbaum etc by US
> law enforcement agencies. Appelbaum and other John Does weren’t suspected
> as criminals
>
>
>
> In this legal contest between EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Centre)
> as the plaintiff and Department of Justice as defendant. EPIC was
> complaining that a file search on Wikileaks and its supporters under
> Freedom of Information Act wasn’t carried out properly by the appropriate
> authorities i.e. F.B.I. The state said it did, but it didn’t find much
> and what it did find was one file on Wikileaks which, on further
> investigation with the case officers was either subject to an ongoing
> criminal investigation, or withheld for national security reasons.
>
>
>
> What EPIC was trying to do was to get access to records held by the US
> state on people or their organisations, who or which have not committed any
> crimes or were being investigated for any crimes of a federal nature. To
> do such a thing is an illegal violation of individual rights to privacy
> under the US constitution. And, as we all know, the state does its best to
> protect individual privacy, at great cost to itself. It really does take
> such things as personal privacy and privacy of communicaitons seriously,
> and therefore wouldn’t even dream of doing such a thing.
>
>
>
> My conclusion: If the state doesn’t keep records on individuals who
> haven’t committed any crime, then it isn’t going to find them! It’s a bit
> like trying to find WMDs in Iraq when they haven’t got any...:-).
>
> Enjoy,
>
> ATB
>
> Dougie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
