I am very sensitive to privacy issues. However, this particular case isn't so easy. Clearly, part of it is motivated by politics, that is, people are upset because they don't like Bush in general, not because of the specific issue involved and I don't like that.
As the "moral principle", this country was attacked in an act of war and clearly the govt has the duty and responsibility to take defensive measures against a further attack. Spying on the enemy and possibly traitors within this country is a classic activity in time of war.
IMHO, part of the issue here is what was done with the information gained. If they turned it over to prosecutors for other routine crimes (ie tax evasion, drug running, import laws), I would object since normal domestic search warrants were not obtained. But AFAIK that was not done.
"Damages" means the plaintiff suffered a monetary loss in some way as a result of the defendant's action. Unless the govt utilized the gleaned information against someone, I'm not sure there was any loss suffered. I am also very hesitant about the class action status, I believe that is overused.
Did the EFF sue all other carriers as well? Activist groups like to pick on the big guys, but that is not fair. If EFF has a true case against the carriers, it has a responsibility to sue every carrier.
I am not in a position to say if the White House was right or wrong in this action.
However, it would appear that it is unfair to order the carriers to make that decision either. I can't help but wonder that the carriers received what appeared to be legitimate official wiretap requests and they complied accordingly. I'm pretty sure if some unknown Fed agent showed up with a wiretap demand without documentation he wouldn't get very far. However, I suspect this came through normal channels that the carriers were used to working with, and thus they had no reason to suspect there may have been a question on them.
That's very nice, but "discovery" is an expensive time consuming process. Who's gonna pay for AT&T's cost? We are!
Censorship of civilian activities was a major activity in WW II. Even back then it was not particularly appreciated, but it was done.
As mentioned, I strongly believe in privacy and normally support EFF efforts. But I'm not so sure on this particular case and I wonder if it's grandstanding. I can think of a great many other privacy issues EFF ought to be concerned about, although they're not very glamorous or headline making.
[public replies, please]