 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
Judge Lets State 'Spying' Suits Continue
by Michael Martinez
A federal judge in California said this week that lawsuits filed by several states challenging the legality of an anti-terrorism surveillance program should be allowed to continue.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker on Tuesday denied without prejudice attempts by the federal government to dismiss the lawsuits on the grounds that they would potentially expose sensitive security information. He said he would like to allow a similar case pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to play out before considering the government's invocation of the "state secrets" privilege.
Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey and Vermont all have sued to determine whether telecommunications companies violated state privacy laws by sharing consumer telephone records as part of the anti-terrorism program. The lawsuits have been supported by privacy advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation.
According to Walker, some of the information being sought by the states falls outside the scope of the secrets privilege. He said the court would best be able to decide how to allow the inquiries to proceed with guidance from the appeals court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Hepting v. AT&T on Aug. 15.
Walker said he was skeptical of some government claims about the potential dangers of the complaints. He also rejected the notion that the lawsuits would affect foreign policy.
"The laws underlying the state investigations are directed at more mundane, local concerns such as utility regulation and privacy, traditional realms of state power," he wrote, in a 35-page ruling.
Even though Walker declined to rule on the government's use of the state-secrets privilege, civil libertarians declared victory. In a statement, Maine Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Shenna Bellows said Walker's decision rejected the federal government's assertion that state-level regulators had no authority to defend the privacy rights of state consumers.
"All Mainers who care about privacy have new hope that [companies'] activities will not go uninvestigated or unpunished," she said.
Lawmaker Wants New Probe Of Gov. Spitzer
New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno is calling for a new investigation into whether Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer conspired to use police information to smear his political rivals in the media.
According to a report released earlier this week by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, several of Spitzer's aides tried to gather police information as part of an effort to plant a negative story about Bruno, a Republican. Spitzer has denied knowing anything about the alleged plot to concoct the story.
Bruno said on Wednesday that another investigation is necessary to determine whether Spitzer or anyone else in the administration tried to cover up what may have happened. In a news conference, he accused Spitzer of allowing his office to be used for spying on political opponents.
Spitzer, who was elected to his first term last year, has been outspoken on several technology-related issues, including high-speed Internet accessibility and videogame violence.
Christine Anderson, Spitzer's spokeswoman, released a statement rejecting calls for state Senate hearings into the matter. She said that independent investigations by the state attorney general and inspector general have been sufficient, and that Spitzer already has disciplined his aides that were targeted by the probes.
"Any new Senate hearings on this same issue would be a complete waste of state taxpayer dollars for purely partisan and political purposes," she said. "Moreover, the state Senate lacks the constitutional authority to conduct investigatory hearings into the internal operations of the governor's office."
Google's N.C. Tax Breaks Are Challenged
The same group that challenged tax incentives used to lure the Dell computer company to North Carolina two years ago has filed a separate lawsuit claiming that tax breaks the state recently extended to the Google Internet firm also are unconstitutional.
The company announced plans earlier this year to build a $600 million computer-server farm in Lenoir, N.C. The North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law filed a lawsuit in state court this week, alleging that tax breaks violate state law.
Legislation enacted last year exempts technology firms like Google from state taxes on electricity and certain types of equipment. Caldwell County, where Lenoir is located, also decided to waive property taxes to bring Google there.
Google told The Charlotte Observer that the lawsuit is baseless and that the company intends to "defend against it vigorously."
Robert Orr, a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice, was the executive director of the law institute when it decided to take legal action against the Google tax breaks this past spring. Orr, a Republican, since has left the organization to focus on his gubernatorial campaign.
Two years ago, the institute sued to challenge tax breaks the state offered Dell to build a manufacturing plan in Winston-Salem. Lawmakers cleared nearly $250 million in incentives as part of that deal.
Arkansas Court Rules On E-Mail Disclosure
The highest court in Arkansas this week ruled that a "neutral court" should be responsible for determining whether e-mails written by state employees should be considered public records.
The state Supreme Court decided Friday that a court should review whether e-mails sent by a former county comptroller are covered by the state's public-records law. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sued to obtain e-mails sent by former Pulaski Country Comptroller Ron Quillin, who has been accused of embezzling tens of thousands of dollars at his old job.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary McGowan has been asked to examine the case. She already ordered the release of some of the e-mails Quillin exchanged with a woman who works for a software company.
State courts across the country have grappled with similar cases this year. The Arizona Supreme Court also decided that courts should be responsible for determining whether e-mails sent by public officials are public records.
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
