Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance

Posted by timothy on from the sweet-of-them dept.

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."

8 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Finally, someone in congress read the constituion by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Hey, bob, this thing we all swore to uphold, are they serious?"

    How much you want to bet this gets tacked on to the next "patriot" style bill?

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  2. Not quite over yet by DalTech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From what I read in the article, the house and senate have voiced oposition. But it goes on to say, "The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush." Looks as if it could still go through.

    1. Re:Not quite over yet by praedor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And he'd be an idiot to veto his own budget bill; that almost never happens.


      Good god. THINK about who you're talking about. GWB IS and idiot. Really. He is an honest to god moron. I wish I could recall the commentator who said it...in the local paper several weeks ago was an item by a CONSERVATIVE commentator who spent some time at the White House covering GW and buds. He indicated that Bush lacks any and all curiousity about anything that he is ignorant of (cultures, technology, etc). He doesn't read - except for the bible and THAT doesn't count for shit. He barely made it through college, there by virtue of his father's coattails. His FATHER, though a dork, was intelligent. Clinton, though a fool, was frickin brilliant. Bush junior, well, let's face it. He is Cletus from the Simpson's.



      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  3. not too sure... by vena · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  4. Correct me if I'm wrong by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but this acticle only says a provision has been made that the surveillance information is not to be used against American Citizens and the bill is likely to pass unless Bush vetoes it or the spending is not approved.

    The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.

    Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  5. For once, a reason to thank my senator by hether · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to a slightly more inclusive NYTimes article I read on this earlier today, one of Iowa's senators - Charles Grassley - co-sponsored the bill. I wrote him a letter this morning thanking him for it. It's the first time ever I've felt like I had a reason to do so.

    I appreciated his quote from the article,

    "Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  6. Americans ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans

    So, American agencies have some limitations on how they may spy on American citizens. Likewise UK agencies may not spy on UK subjects. Fair enough, until those two agree to swap notes, so US spies on Brits (freely and legally) and the Brits spy on the yankees (freely and legally).

    I think we need some international treaty, on the level of the Geneva convention, that limits the sharing of "intelligence" information to the level that would have been legal to obtain if it had been done by local authorities. And strong (death?) penalties to those who break the convention.

    Well, I am (still?) allowed to dream...

  7. Re:Hilarious by symbolic · · Score: 5, Interesting


    One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.

    What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.

    I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.