From: Joseph Roth <jnr2107@columbia.edu>
  To  : <CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:17:53 -0400

J Roth paper 2

------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C674FD.4FD784B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Remembering the Practical, Joe Roth

=20

The most interesting chunk of this semester=92s classes was dominated by
current events. Sometimes, the discussion moved to the uncomfortable
territory of wondering why many people did not seem to care too much. =
Often,
a response resorted to principles of privacy, constitutional rights, or =
the
importance of maintaining control over one=92s self. In discussing these
issues with others, I found myself running into the same apathy and
struggling to give pragmatic arguments for why a person who does not =
care
should. The principles are valid, should be fleshed out, and can form =
the
bases of powerful arguments for the guarding of privacy. Relying on =
these
arguments alone, however, makes it more difficult to convince people to =
care
about who controls the information they acquire and the information =
about
them. The arguments need to be framed so that the practical reasons to
support the principle are not forgotten.=20

            The NSA =93wiretap=94 scandal is a paradigmatic example of =
the
problem. The principled argument against the domestic surveillance =
program
is strong. As discussed in class, old and new understandings of the =
meanings
of the Fourth Amendment prohibit such unilateral executive action. Aside
from a surprisingly broad reading of executive power and/or a =
questionable
reading of the Authorization to Use Military Force, this appears clearly
unconstitutional, or, at a minimum, specifically unauthorized by
Congress.[1] The strength of this argument against the program is not
reflected in public opinion. For example, a poll from late January =
revealed
that people were split as to whether they approved or disapproved of
=93wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court
warrants.=94[2]=20

There are reasons for the discrepancy between the noncommittal public
opinion and the clear-cut principled argument. The debate is falsely
portrayed to the public in a way such that practical arguments are =
pitted
against principled arguments. The issue is commonly described as the NSA
wiretapping phone calls and e-mails without warrants.[3] The use of the =
verb
=93to wiretap=94 is understandable because it requires little =
explanation. The
problem is that it has a common understanding that frames the issue
inaccurately and in a way that exploits a misunderstanding of the =
technology
involved. Many people probably assume that =93wiretapping=94 means what =
it used
to mean: someone is singled out for eavesdropping and their =
communications
recorded. This understanding is open to the =93no one is interested in =
my
phone calls=94 response and the administration=92s justification relies =
on that
response. For example, in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, the Attorney General reiterated the practical argument for =
the
program: =93as the President has said, if you=92re talking with al =
Qaeda, we
want to know what you=92re saying.=94[4] Under these terms, the =
principled
argument has to be enough alone and whether or not it is enough, it is a
tougher sell to the public.

What is needed is for the institutional press to stop relying on =
irrelevant
and misleading terms like =93wiretap=94 and to be honest in their =
descriptions
about what is known and what is not. What is known is that this is not a
wiretap. Gonzales=92s statements passively made clear that the program =
likely
involves more. For example, in the introduction, he states, =93We know =
from
the 9-11 Commission Report that they communicated with their superiors
abroad using e-mail, the Internet, and telephones.=94[5] First, this =
suggests
something broader than recording a few phone calls between known =
numbers.
The NSA is not full of stupid people; they know Osama bin Laden has seen =
the
Sopranos and that he knows not to use the landline to discuss business.
Second, this makes clear that the program is about analyzing packets, =
not
about listening to phone calls.[6] Avoiding the use of lazy descriptions
will help re-frame the debate and achieve several goals. First, it will
remove the practical-argument high-ground from the administration =
because
the we-want-to-know-what-you-are-saying argument is undermined. It is =
now
much less clear how the NSA knows which packets are which and how much =
they
are collecting to listen in on any given conversation. Based on =
available
information, it is valid to wonder whether what I search, e-mail, or to =
whom
I talk over VOIP is monitored, accidentally or not. Second, this first =
goal
shows how much is not known and may encourage a more honest debate about
what is actually happening. That debate can then weigh whether the fight
against sophisticated terrorists requires a change in principled
understandings. Reporting must change so that the public can demand more
questions are asked.

Another example where practical arguments are necessary to successfully
engage the debate of principles is the Google-in-China controversy and =
the
subpoena of search engines. The principle involved is the person=92s =
right to
keep the state unaware of what she wants to know. These controversies =
should
be integrated as two spots on the same continuum and we should be wary =
of
both. Practical examples of how both might affect a person can help that
person assess why the principle involved is an important one. For =
example,
instead of only objecting to the subpoenas because the government should =
not
be able to acquire such information, one might ask a person whether they
have ever thought about how long Yahoo keeps their search logs and what
their last year=92s worth of searches reveals. Regarding google.cn,
Frontline=92s episode on Tiananmen Square and Chinese censorship =
provided an
effective example of how scarily effective censorship is.[7] They first
asked University of Beijing Students to describe what a photograph of =
the
=93Tank Man=94 meant to them. None had a thought because they had no =
context or
understanding. Next, they searched images.google for =93Tiananmen =
Square,=94
first at .com and then at .cn. Com produced a huge number of pictures of =
the
Tank Man; cn produced pictures of tourists visiting the site. These two
practical experiments presented memorable examples of why the principle
involved mattered. If we want to maintain the importance of the =
principles
behind privacy in a changing technological world, we must remember the
importance of the practical.=20

=20

=20

Word Count: 994

=20


  _____ =20

[1] See, e.g., Bradley, et al., On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress=B8
available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650 (Feb. 9, 2006).

[2] Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, New Poll Finds Mixed Support for
Wiretaps, N.Y. Times, Jan. 27, 2006, at A1.=20

[3] I am not suggesting that there is not better reporting out there; =
there
is. I argue that the major national and local news media describes the
scandal as such.

[4] Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Prepared Statement of Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Feb. =
6,
2006) (available at
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/gonz20606stmnt.html)=20

[5] Ibid.=20

[6] This is bolstered by the Klein affidavit in the EFF action against =
AT&T,
e.g., Whistleblower Outs NSA=92s Secret Spy Room at AT&T, Spam Daily =
News,
Apr. 8, 2006, at
http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp.=20

[7] Frontline: The Tank Man (PBS television broadcast, Apr. 11, 2006)
(available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/)=20


------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C674FD.4FD784B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"country-region"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.MsoEndnoteReference
	{vertical-align:super;}
p.MsoEndnoteText, li.MsoEndnoteText, div.MsoEndnoteText
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
 /* Page Definitions */
 @page
	{mso-endnote-separator:url("cid:header.htm\@01C674FD.24570B30") es;
	=
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("cid:header.htm\@01C674FD.24570B30=
") ecs;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;
	mso-endnote-numbering-style:arabic;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Remembering the =
Practical</span></font></b>,
Joe Roth<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The most interesting chunk of this =
semester’s
classes was dominated by current events. Sometimes, the discussion moved =
to the
uncomfortable territory of wondering why many people did not seem to =
care too
much. Often, a response resorted to principles of privacy, =
constitutional
rights, or the importance of maintaining control over one’s self. =
In
discussing these issues with others, I found myself running into the =
same
apathy and struggling to give pragmatic arguments for why a person who =
does not
care should. The principles are valid, should be fleshed out, and can =
form the
bases of powerful arguments for the guarding of privacy. Relying on =
these
arguments alone, however, makes it more difficult to convince people to =
care about
who controls the information they acquire and the information about =
them. The
arguments need to be framed so that the practical reasons to support the
principle are not forgotten. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The NSA “wiretap” =
scandal is a paradigmatic
example of the problem. The principled argument against the domestic
surveillance program is strong. As discussed in class, old and new
understandings of the meanings of the Fourth Amendment prohibit such =
unilateral
executive action. Aside from a surprisingly broad reading of executive =
power
and/or a questionable reading of the Authorization to Use Military =
Force, this
appears clearly unconstitutional, or, at a minimum, specifically =
unauthorized
by Congress.<a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn1' href=3D"#_edn1" =
name=3D"_ednref1"
title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font
size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[1]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
The strength of this argument against the program is not reflected in =
public
opinion. For example, a poll from late January revealed that people were =
split
as to whether they approved or disapproved of “wiretaps on some =
phone
calls in the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place>
without getting court warrants.”<a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn2'
href=3D"#_edn2" name=3D"_ednref2" title=3D""><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[2]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>There are reasons for the discrepancy between =
the
noncommittal public opinion and the clear-cut principled argument. The =
debate
is falsely portrayed to the public in a way such that practical =
arguments are
pitted against principled arguments. The issue is commonly described as =
the NSA
wiretapping phone calls and e-mails without warrants.<a =
style=3D'mso-endnote-id:
edn3' href=3D"#_edn3" name=3D"_ednref3" title=3D""><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[3]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
The use of the verb “to wiretap” is understandable because =
it
requires little explanation. The problem is that it has a common =
understanding
that frames the issue inaccurately and in a way that exploits a =
misunderstanding
of the technology involved. Many people probably assume that
“wiretapping” means what it used to mean: someone is singled =
out
for eavesdropping and their communications recorded. This understanding =
is open
to the “no one is interested in my phone calls” response and =
the
administration’s justification relies on that response. For =
example, in
his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Attorney =
General
reiterated the practical argument for the program: “as the =
President has
said, if you’re talking with al Qaeda, we want to know what =
you’re
saying.”<a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn4' href=3D"#_edn4" =
name=3D"_ednref4"
title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font
size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[4]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
Under these terms, the principled argument has to be enough alone and =
whether
or not it is enough, it is a tougher sell to the =
public.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>What is needed is for the institutional press =
to stop
relying on irrelevant and misleading terms like “wiretap” =
and to be
honest in their descriptions about what is known and what is not. What =
is known
is that this is not a wiretap. Gonzales’s statements passively =
made clear
that the program likely involves more. For example, in the introduction, =
he
states, “We know from the 9-11 Commission Report that they =
communicated
with their superiors abroad using e-mail, the Internet, and =
telephones.”<a
style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn5' href=3D"#_edn5" name=3D"_ednref5" =
title=3D""><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font
size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[5]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
First, this suggests something broader than recording a few phone calls =
between
known numbers. The NSA is not full of stupid people; they know Osama bin =
Laden
has seen the Sopranos and that he knows not to use the landline to =
discuss
business. Second, this makes clear that the program is about analyzing =
packets,
not about listening to phone calls.<a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn6' =
href=3D"#_edn6"
name=3D"_ednref6" title=3D""><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[6]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
Avoiding the use of lazy descriptions will help re-frame the debate and =
achieve
several goals. First, it will remove the practical-argument high-ground =
from
the administration because the we-want-to-know-what-you-are-saying =
argument is
undermined. It is now much less clear how the NSA knows which packets =
are which
and how much they are collecting to listen in on any given conversation. =
Based
on available information, it is valid to wonder whether what I search, =
e-mail,
or to whom I talk over VOIP is monitored, accidentally or not. Second, =
this
first goal shows how much is not known and may encourage a more honest =
debate
about what is actually happening. That debate can then weigh whether the =
fight
against sophisticated terrorists requires a change in principled
understandings. Reporting must change so that the public can demand more
questions are asked.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Another example where practical arguments are
necessary to successfully engage the debate of principles is the
Google-in-China controversy and the subpoena of search engines. The =
principle
involved is the person’s right to keep the state unaware of what =
she wants
to know. These controversies should be integrated as two spots on the =
same
continuum and we should be wary of both. Practical examples of how both =
might
affect a person can help that person assess why the principle involved =
is an
important one. For example, instead of only objecting to the subpoenas =
because
the government should not be able to acquire such information, one might =
ask a
person whether they have ever thought about how long Yahoo keeps their =
search
logs and what their last year’s worth of searches reveals. =
Regarding
google.cn, Frontline’s episode on <st1:place w:st=3D"on">Tiananmen =
Square</st1:place>
and Chinese censorship provided an effective example of how scarily =
effective
censorship is.<a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn7' href=3D"#_edn7" =
name=3D"_ednref7"
title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><span =
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font
size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[7]</span></font></sup></span></sup></span></a>
They first asked <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType =
w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType>
 of <st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Beijing =
Students</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> to
describe what a photograph of the “Tank Man” meant to them. =
None
had a thought because they had no context or understanding. Next, they =
searched
images.google for “<st1:place w:st=3D"on">Tiananmen =
Square</st1:place>,”
first at .com and then at .cn. Com produced a huge number of pictures of =
the
Tank Man; cn produced pictures of tourists visiting the site. These two
practical experiments presented memorable examples of why the principle
involved mattered. If we want to maintain the importance of the =
principles
behind privacy in a changing technological world, we must remember the
importance of the practical. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>Word Count: 994<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote-list'><br clear=3Dall>

<hr align=3Dleft size=3D1 width=3D"33%">

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn1>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn1' =
href=3D"#_ednref1"
name=3D"_edn1" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[1]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
<i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>See, e.g., </span></i>Bradley, et =
al., <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>On NSA Spying: A Letter to =
Congress</span></i>=B8 <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>available at</span></i> =
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650
(Feb. 9, 2006).</p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn2>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn2' =
href=3D"#_ednref2"
name=3D"_edn2" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[2]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, <i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>New =
Poll
Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps</span></i>, N.Y. Times, Jan. 27, 2006, =
at A1. </p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn3>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn3' =
href=3D"#_ednref3"
name=3D"_edn3" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[3]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
I am not suggesting that there is not better reporting out there; there =
is. I argue
that the major national and local news media describes the scandal as =
such.</p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn4>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn4' =
href=3D"#_ednref4"
name=3D"_edn4" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[4]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Prepared Statement of Attorney =
General
Alberto R. Gonzales to the <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
Senate Judiciary Committee (Feb. 6, 2006) (available at =
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/gonz20606stmnt.html)
</p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn5>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn5' =
href=3D"#_ednref5"
name=3D"_edn5" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[5]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
<i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>Ibid.</span></i> </p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn6>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn6' =
href=3D"#_ednref6"
name=3D"_edn6" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[6]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
This is bolstered by the Klein affidavit in the EFF action against =
AT&T, <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>e.g., Whistleblower Outs NSA’s Secret =
Spy Room
at AT&T</span></i>, Spam Daily News, Apr. 8, 2006, at =
http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp.
</p>

</div>

<div style=3D'mso-element:endnote' id=3Dedn7>

<p class=3DMsoEndnoteText><a style=3D'mso-endnote-id:edn7' =
href=3D"#_ednref7"
name=3D"_edn7" title=3D""><span class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font =
size=3D2
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><span
class=3DMsoEndnoteReference><sup><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman"'>[7]</span></font></sup></span></span></font></sup></span></a>
<i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>Frontline: The Tank Man</span></i> =
(PBS
television broadcast, Apr. 11, 2006) (available at =
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/)
</p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C674FD.4FD784B0--

J Roth paper 2.doc


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list