Home | About | Donate

Wikimedia vs. NSA: Major Lawsuit Challenges Government Surveillance of US Citizens


#1

Wikimedia vs. NSA: Major Lawsuit Challenges Government Surveillance of US Citizens

Jon Queally, staff writer

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia and one of the most highly-trafficked websites in the world, announced Tuesday that it has filed—alongside a host of civil liberty advocates, news outlets, and privacy rights organizations—a lawsuit against the National Security Agency for violating the constitutional rights of its users by performing bulk surveillance and searching, without specific cause or warrant, the international Internet communications of all Americans including emails, web-browsing content, and search-engine queri


#2

The NSA and the CIA are the biggest threats to Liberty and Freedom on this globe. Both violate the highest Law in the Land, the First and Fourth Amendment on a daily basis.

We should defund both of them.

(p.s., this took me about four tries to make this post show up. What a tyrannical KGB to actively interfere with free speech in this manner.)


#3

Oh, Wikipedia. How I love you.


#4

This upstream surveilance sounds a lot like entrapment to me. Throw out a bone and bust anyone who takes it? I can't see why for any reason that I'd be suspect for anything based on my internet surfing. It also sounds a lot like rationals used for book burning. "Only criminals are going to look up information on x,y,z." Nonsense!


#5

Thank you Wikipedia
health status of internet patient: in need of intensive care; spinal tap on top of a bad case of the clap

come to think of it, the coherence of political rhetoric of Clapper et al is sort of reminiscent of Spinal Tap


sound familiar?

#6

This is exactly the way to fight the surveillance state; keep it up. Thanks Wikkimedia.


#8

Let's assume for a moment that this lawsuit succeeds. In what manner and by whom would this be enforced?

Regardless, I applaud the effort and encourage you to donate to Wikipedia -- https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=US&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org


#9

How could anyone imagine that total blanket surveillance could possibly be constitutional? What would constitute an "Unreasonable" search under the 4th amendment if searching "everything" didn't?


#10

You are absolutely correct. The foxes already guard the chickens. What good would come from the cougars or the coyotes guarding the foxes?

The rot caused by the termites in the house is too far advanced for small fixes to be terribly useful. Kennedy´s idea to exterminate the CIA might have saved the house - or at least slowed the advance of the rot.

Now, the entire world-wide political and economic house (of cards) is so weak and rotted that it´s only a matter of time before it falls. Nothing can save it.

But a mass upgrade in consciousness and wisdom and compassion may take the house down more gracefully and minimize the damage to the most vulnerable. And it will most surely construct a much sturdier replacement.

May the consciousness shift happen before La Pachamama metes out Her own unique kind of discipline on the human species. THIS is my hope.


#12

We should start a petition to get Edward Snowden pardoned. I also am as offended by corporations taking my information as I am fearful of the gov't having it. Wonder if anyone else feels that way, or if I'm a bit off base here... Dan from Custer


#13

My guess? The Fascist 5 on the Extreme Court will yet again distort Constitutional interpretation in order to rule in favor of the criminal alphabet agencies, i.e. NSA, CIA, FBI, etc., if the case goes that far.


#14

How sure is it that the CIA perpetrated the coup? There is no doubt in my mind that western operatives did, but there are a lot of entities out there capable of doing it, and not even all governmental. Of course the CIA is to be suspected, but what was to stop, for example, operatives of various corporations from doing it?


#15

I am well aware of the shortcomings in Wikipedia that you mention. The entry on Libya and Ghadaffi is also shockingly one sided. It is good to get the message out there. When Wikipedia first started, the big money did not pay too much attention to it. That has changed. Ultimately it is important to understand how Wikipedia works.

  • Wikipedia has become the record that most people turn to in order to know the truth. So it is very important, and yet,
  • Wikipedia needs donors. It barely gets by on its donations. Those with money are in a position to make demands.
  • Wikipedia needs people who take the time to research, provide the evidence and take the time to update the content and to fight for the truth. (For example, Israel runs free courses in Wikipedia contributions to ensure that their side of any issue is be favorably presented. They also fund people to contribute and dispute versions of events that do not present them favorably.)

What is needed is a left wing truth organization with people who are committed to performing research in order to martial the evidence and using it to dispute and rectify one sided information. Individuals do not have the time. Collective effort, an organization is required. If the left abandons Wikipedia, the money will have its way on everything.

Wkipedia is still very useful. Unlike the media, money does not own it in the literal sense, but money can still have a huge influence what is worthy of inclusion and just how that information is presented. Money does not have an interest in misrepresenting every topic. All the entries on Mathematics, for example are meticulously correct and you wont find a bias there. At the other extreme, you have coverage of US interventions.


#19

Excellent post. Unlike the other poster, you understand the largest collection of public knowledge on the planet. Wikipedia is just a starting point. The references given need to be verified. If info is incorrect, or the tone is not neutral, then the reader is invited to correct it.

Your point about organized editing is the most important point in this thread. Boiler rooms paid by Israel or the CIA, for example, certainly distort current events, but they cannot change all of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is millions of pages! Anyone can start a new one, such as: Alternate viewpoint of the Ukrainian Shootdown of MH17, as an example.

I'll now contribute to wikipedia because of your solicitation. I've been meaning to do it for a long time.

TJ


#20

I don't think you understand Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is not a source. It is an organizing tool for all that is knowable.

Wikipedia is the opposite of CIA. CIA, historically strove for content control of Mainstream Media. Please read about Operation Mockingbird for evidence of this attempt to control content to the masses.

Wiki philosophy, on the contrary, is Open-source anarchy, where anyone can contribute. This means that it will have a great amount of errors, but, due to it's volume, contains a great amount of public knowledge.


#22

I'm not sure what the reliability or accuracy of Wikipedia has to do with the fact that they are one of a group who have initiated a lawsuit against the unauthorized, unconstitutional spying by the government. Isn't the lawsuit a subject to address rather than the merits of the plaintiffs that are irrelevant to the merits of the lawsuit? There are other plaintiffs, possibly ones you might respect and admire, that could be used to discuss the underlying case. It's clear I just don't understand your point in this context.


#23

Some sections are extremely biased; that's certainly true. The section on Gold is closed, since banks don't want us to know too much about it. The section on George W. Bush is nothing but 100 percent falsehoods, and doesn't include the major Dan Rather story about the time GWB went AWOL from the Air National Guard to hide from dangerous F-102 combat in Vietnam. It ended Dan Rather's career. But you can still read about that on the Dan Rather page.

But it is not exclusively American, as you seem to think. Anybody in any country can edit it. A dozen other countries use it in their own languages.

So, all things considered, many pages of it are a great primer for further research. Is it just for the ruling class? I'm not in the ruling class, but I've made pages that are still 90 percent my material and they are still there. You could make the same argument about the bias of the dictionary and swear never to believe it.

But then, how smart would you be?

College training gives you the skill set to selectively read and critically think. Dismissing the largest repository of public knowledge out-of-hand and categorizing it all as propaganda is not the signature of a learned mind. Many pages are critical of the United States. For example, please read about Operation Cyclone and tell me if you think it was written by the ruling class.

TJ


#24

The CIA IS "operatives of various corporations"!


#25

If you think wikipedia's info about Ukraine or anything is biased and incorrect then sign in and challenge it presenting your own version with evidence. It's that simple. There is no sinister controlling bureau of disinformation at Wikpipedia, it is written by the general public and this may include paid lackeys serving corporate interests, government advocates, PR men, tourist boards or just some retired old professor with lots of free time on his hands. You can't blame the org itself only those who utilise it as a tool to their ends, who are many and varied, as mixed as the general global demographic. Understandably this results in misinformation, often with a pro-western, very pro-US bias, inasmuch as there is probably more people from the USA editing it than any other country, particularly Third World ones where few people have access to computers and so forth. It's up to us to be the Guardians of it, if we care at all.


#29

Let's try it again.

The foul history of Allen Dulles should be exhumed and widely published, so all can see the motivations grunting up the birth of the CIA. The CIA should not only be defunded, but the manipulating beneficiaries should also be liable for damages. Six out of seven of the original formulators were out of Wall Street.