Slashdot Mirror
House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance
vena writes "The Star Tribune reports the House and Senate today agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens proposed by the Total Information Awareness program. Additionally, negotiators agreed to halt all future funding on the program without extensive consultation with Congress."
They didn't *win* anything. All "they" are required to do is issue a report to congress in 90 days detailing the system's function and scope. They aren't required to stop anything, assuming they file the appropriate paperwork.
. html (the one cited by the poster is a boiled-down version).
A better version of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12PRIV
Even if they don't look at it right now, they can always change the laws later and go back and read your e-mail then.
Storage is cheap, and tape is cheap. The one protection you might have is that they only have backups on tapes and that the tapes go bad after a few years. But if they back up onto optical media, they basically have a record of all your e-mails for all eternity.
Heck, I run a mail server and a backup server for my company. It's really handy when an IMAP user accidentally deletes an e-mail. I can just go back and restore that mailbox for them. Even for something a year old.
The point is, just because the law says you are safe this instant doesn't mean squat. All that you do is recorded. If you don't like that, then use something like nonymouse.com and/or PGP.
But there are still many, many other ways in which personal information is aggregated and analyzed, without the benefit of an oversight committee, or even significant regulation. So I'm still worried.
And I have another creeping worry: what if convicted felon Poindexter might have actually done some good with his (admittedly grotesque, and probably wildly impractical) database?
I mean, I'm always the first to howl about how those who give up freedom to gain a little security deserve neither, but does anybody else wonder about this? I mean, things are getting a little tense in the world these days.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
i was under the impression that you cannot prosecute people for acts committed before they were made a crime. anyone have any info on that?
It called "ex post facto" and it is a major part of the US Constitution. No law can be passed to make that provision irrelevant either, it would take a Constitutional amendment to. Ex Post Facto (latin, roughly translated: after the fact) is one of the basic parts of our freedom, and what seperates us from non-democratic societies.
The goal of the FBI in wiretapping isn't to arrest terrorists, its to find out what is being planned and attempt to prevent or derail it. Many of these individuals *could* be exported as enemy combatants anyway (quietly, Im sure) if they are not US citizens.
Doesn't make it right to wiretap everyone, but that is the goal.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Apparenlty few read the article (including the poster) before replying.
If all take a moment to read any of the 3 articles published today reporting the conferees agreement, it should be clear that the agreement does not prohibit surveillance of electronic communication between US citizens.
The agreement addresses the use of the data collected in prosecuting citizens and includes congressional oversight of further funding and reasearch but does not prohibit the evesdropping.
Show me in the Bill of Rights were you are guaranteed a right to privacy.
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(Hint: its not in the Bill of Rights)
It is indeed the Bill of Rights that guarantees the protection of individual liberties; you'll remember that the federalists argued that no such things is necessary, because enumerating specific rights only means that the government can find ways to infringe upon other rights, that have not been explicitly enumerated. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, were afraid of a strong central government, and wanted a bill of rights to serve as an explicit social contract between the people and the government.
Bush Lies Watch