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."

11 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Double standards by flowerp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then, on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible (Echelon, Echelon II, etc...). Of course that's perfectly legitimate for them because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.

    --
    --- Eat my sig.
    1. Re:Double standards by blibbleblobble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It [echelon] hardly affects privacy of the American people"

      Interestingly, that was one of the reasons that PGP export was allowed: American companies operating abroad had to use easily-breakable encryption, becuase it was all they were allowed to take to their worldwide offices. Of course, that meant that the government of any country they operated in could decrypt their comms, and tip-off native companies in competition with them.

      Not that the US would ever sink to such depths... *cough*arms-sales-contracts*cough*

  2. No TIA? No problem. by cryptochrome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't let the Pentagon spy on Americans? That's OK, I'm sure we can find somebody else to do it for us, and return the favor to them, since we are allowed to spy on foreigners.

    You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Just don't lie to me, pal. Not that I'd know if you were.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  3. Skewed perspective? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article: Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program, saying, "The Department of Defense still feels that it's a tool that can be used to alert us to terrorist acts before they occur." He added, "It's not a program that snoops into American citizens' privacy."

    How can it not be a program that snoops into American citizens privacy? From past experience, I've found that the other issue is that once databases are available, they will be tapped for a variety of purposes not originally envisioned or intended.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  4. Congress doesn't care about you by jpnews · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They care about themselves. The executive branch is increasingly refusing to even CONSULT with Congress regarding these admittedly outrageous plans. But you'd be wrong to think that they're blocking this because they give a shit about your rights. They just want to be included... to make sure they have a hand in everything. In this case they're just exercising their right to refuse to fund ANY project in an attempt to get the WH to play ball with them. Otherwise they're going to take their ball and bat and go home, I guess.

    1. Re:Congress doesn't care about you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Senators and Congresspersons are just as vulnerable to these insane surveillance proposals as anyone else. And since the military is answerable to the executive branch, if I were a minority member of Congress (Democrats now, perhaps the Republicans in four or eight years) I would be particularly worried that these tools would be used to prop up whomever held the White House, now or in the future. They're just as concerned about their rights as you are about yours.

      I've known a few Representatives; they really do try to do what they consider as best for their constituents. Sometimes, it's just that the most visible of their constituents are big corporations and special-interest groups. But they're certainly not interested in giving up their rights to some giant Pentagon surveillance apparatus any more than you are.

  5. Re:Excellent news! by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be excellent news if Poindexter didn't have a track record
    of lying to Congress about what he was up to. Maybe they can find
    a good military officer, a colonel maybe, to make those reports
    to Congress.

    If I hold my hands in front of my face, you can't see me

  6. Re:About time... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    please tell Tom Daschle to stop suggesting that we are not protected from terrorists if you don't want the government to be able to do anything about it.

    We don't *NEED* protection from terrorists, and the measures enacted so far have done *nothing* but strip us of the very conveniences and freedoms we would like to protect.

    You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True. But how often did we experience such attacks *prior* to the WTC attack? And, even if we *did* expect something since that time, why would anyone bother? Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Coming to Maple Street"? That about covers it.

    As much as I hate the "if we don't blah, the terrorists have already won", our attourney general, and the OHS, and TIA, all *embody* the ultimate goals of any potential terrorists. Why should *real* terrorists waste their time and effort doing what we will willingly, even beggingly, do to ourselves? Personally, I'd rather risk a quick death less likely than getting struck by lightning, than have the afforementioned whack-jobs supposedly "protecting" us make a long and sedate life not worth living. But then, I don't consider myself a sheep. If you like having Ashcroft herd you into a nice "secure" detention cells, by all means beg for more. But leave me the hell out of your plans.

  7. Re:About time... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We still won something very valuable. After 9/11 *everything* was going through without so much as a question. At least now our elected representatives are saying, "hold on a minute," instead of just rolling over. The victory is that someone, somewhere is remembering that we have something called rights and they're at least taking the time to see if they apply.

    TW

  8. Re:Excellent news! by skion_filrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It depends on if you are an American citizen or not:

    "The program could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted against non-U.S. citizens."

    Then again, how do they know that you are an American citizen without reading your email and checking you up?

  9. Re:About time... by Darby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I take EVERYTHING my government tells me with a large amount of cynicism and suspicion.

    As is your duty as a citizen of a (supposedly) free society.

    Call me paranoid or a wacko

    No. I'll call you a patriot since that is what you are by being "eternally vigilant".
    It's sad that so many people don't realise that going along with your government right or wrong isn't patriotism. It's treason.