Lawsuit Against ATT Allowed To Proceed

Privacy received a motion of support when a federal judge ruled that despite Bush Administration attempts to kill the lawsuit against ATT for an illegal surveillance program. Since the story is already public, there is no secrecy to protect. The content of the ruling, particularly the below quotes are worth reading, because it demonstrates just how desparate the Bush Administration has been to keep this under wraps.
Wired.com

A federal judge in San Francisco has rejected the Bush administration's bid to kill the EFF's class action lawsuit alleging that AT&T is cooperating in an illegal NSA surveillance program that monitors Americans' internet activities.


In a 72-page written decision (.pdf) issued Thursday, U.S. District Court chief judge Vaughn Walker rejected the government's argument that merely allowing the case to proceed would cause critical harm to U.S. national security -- a ruling that marks a significant victory for EFF, and puts a rare limitation on the reach of the president's "state secrets privilege" to sweep alleged illegal government activities under the cloak of national security.

[...]The court also recognizes that legislative or other developments might alter the course of this litigation. But it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. ... To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired. The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.


[...]Based on these public disclosures, the court cannot conclude that the existence of a certification regarding the "communication content" program is a state secret. If the government's public disclosures have been truthful, revealing whether AT&T has received a certification to assist in monitoring communication content should not reveal any new information that would assist a terrorist and adversely affect national security. And if the government has not been truthful, the state secrets privilege should not serve as a shield for its false public statements. In short, the government has opened the door for judicial inquiry by publicly confirming and denying material information about its monitoring of communication content.