Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Tech And NSA Wiretaps
Tyler Too writes "Is there more to last week's story about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without court review? Ars Technica writes about what's going on behind the curtains with the National Security Agency's technology: 'When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.'"
The problem for the average American isn't necesarily that liberties are being taken with regard to surveillance of fringe elements who might be prone to terrorism. The real problem is in defining what is a fringe element and who might be prone to become a terrorist. The recent news that groups like Greenpeace and PETA are being investigated leads me to believe that the authorities consider anyone with an opinion about anything as being involved in a fringe element. Strangely, the NSA, FBI and other institutions harbor people who think like this regardless of the current administration and political climate. It seems that we have to clarify to them what is acceptable every couple of decades or so.
The Bush administration really screwed up this time, and I'm saying this from a completely non-partisan point of view. The FISA court exists specifically for quick wiretaps when the government believes there is an immediate threat, and they even have a 72 hour period where you can get the tap authorized by FISA after the tap is placed. As far as I'm aware, they never even brought some of these cases before FISA.
The fact that they did this without even consulting the FISA court is completely illegal, and bypasses the checks and balances of our government. I don't think anything will happen to the prez, but this is really just disgusting.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
Are you kidding me? Why would you even allow anyone to have such powers?
Our wonderful country is based on a constitution. And this guy can circumvent it and your answer is 'so what?'
Why does Bush even care about the Patriot Act again? He said himself he would continue this behavior "irregardless".
13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
This really isn't anything new. In fact Carter used the Exact same Authority that Bush is using now. That executive order became Executive Order 12333 under Reagan in 1981. Gorelick also stated that Clinton used the same authority. From a CATO Report:
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
FISA itself has ruled that:t ml?id=110007703
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
Bush also pointed out that the 9/11 resolution gave him additional authority. Here is the verbage:
"use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons [...] "
What's the real difference between spying and restriction? Spying is, of course, a necessary prerequisite for restriction as the government needs to know what you're up to in order to prevent you from doing it. So what the president ordered wiretaps? If the president ordered wiretaps in violation of his Constitutional duties then he violated his oath. If you allow one president to violate the Constitution for "security", then you are saying the President is above the law. That, unfortunately, is a prerequisite for dictatorship.
http://www.flurry.com
E-mail and news on y
About the part of technology in the topic, I wonder how tech will change the way we live our lives in the US (that seems to becoming more fascist everyday).
How about this plan:
We begin the call in the clear. We tell each other our public encryption key.
Go silent and key in the other parties public key.
Begin speaking again and the voices are encrypted using the public keys.
On the receiving end, the encrypted packets are decrypted using the private keys.
There we have a phone call that's impossible to tap.
When the truth comes out (if it ever does)
You'll be pushing 70, at a minimum, and the technology will seem quaint, though cool from a historical perspective.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Terrorists! National Security!
The situation is explained, go back to bed.
C'mon, we all saw this coming, it seems like it's about time for a revolution. I am not kidding about this either, will anyone here really be surprised if another American revolution takes place within the next decade? I am _not_ afraid to hide my identity, if I get arrested for speaking out against the current way things are done, not only will the rights granted by the constitution (which isn't followed these days anyway) be violated, but it will also help serve as proof that something needs to be changed.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
1 579.html
George W Bush
April 20, 2004
Here is his full statement from that day:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-38
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
The article talks about "Soft Triggers" which are interesting. A lot of focus has gone on keywords, but there are far more efficent technologies out there for building predective models. Why do you want a predective model? Simply put with Petabytes of data out there from intercepted transmissions you have to predict based on the content of a message if a message in innocent or threat. Replace the words "threat" with "spam" and all of a sudden technologies like Bayes and other data mining techniques are interesting.
If you don't think this is valuable, go read a book on Enigma and find out how much exactly reading your opponents mail helps.
However technologies such as this are not covered by FISA. I think it would have been better to revise FISA to cover technologies such as this, but non-withstanding that, it's really nothing new in terms of excercise of power then anything Clinton or even Carter did.
Slashdot meta-comments
spying = teh badness
president = teh evil
republicans = talking points
democrats = hate freedom
Nazi = Thread Godwinned
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
That's got to be pretty big iron to scan all those phone calls, I wonder what algorithm do they use?
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
1: Protection against government intrusion.
2: Protection against terrorism.
You're not going to get both.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There is just way too much Digg overlap going on here.
Wiretaps - Easy.
Slashdot taps - ???
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If the article in question is to believed, and they are scanning 1% of all US calls, they probably aren't distinguishing between foreign and citizen conversations. They're simply eavedropping on everybody and then trying to figure out what's going on.
Ignoring civil liberties is almost never warranted, and every time we do it, it turns out that not only do we regret it, but most important *it was never necessary to do in the first case*.
Didn't we learn anything from the internment of Japanese citzens during WWII?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If the FISA court can provide retroactive approval it seems there is no reason for the Administration to go outside the bounds of the act to aquire a wire tap. The question we need to ask is why the administration felt they had to act outside the act-- perhaps they are doing more than just wiretaping. Or maybe the technology or technique they are using more intrusive than the act allows or a judge would allow. That might explain why the NSA is in the picture.
I'm not paranoid, i just havn't taken my soma.
sweeeeeeeet
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
We've read a lot about the network wiretapping technologies in use by the intelligence agencies, Carnivore, and similar At least one of the technology providers allows us to take a closer look at the actual technologies used. Unispeed openly claims to provide solutions to police and intelligence agencies. They'll even let you try the stuff for yourself
I understand the nessecity for wiretaps & high levels of secrecy to avoid intelligence falling into the wrong hands,
but we keep hearing we are at war with terrorists, no body is safe.
I know there is a large imminent terrorist threat, but is this a war or more just a large unkown fear placed by the administration onto the population. So many people are fearful of nothing, they don't understand whats going on or why it needs to be done & the more it all goes on people are getting more and more frustrated because of all the paranoia regarding this supposed war.
At some point in war there is meant to be communication between to sides, some sort of resolve, this is not happening, it is just a bunch of fundamentalists trying to stir the pot while the Government keeps declaring its a war on humanity.
These wiretaps are more confusion to add to everything else thats going on around us, nobody know's anymore who's right or who's wrong, all we see is a President on TV bascially doing announcing he needs america to help him fight a war on Terror and thats all the details the american people are going to get.
Aho-Corasick
If the Dems manage to gain back a majority in the house next election, I would think they would be obliged to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush. It would have a lot more validity than the impeachment of Clinton, and they would look like wimps if they didn't.
If you post it, they will read.
Whats with the mods here? why mod this a troll? SO, If I am conservitive Im a troll and if Im Libral Im not? WTF is that?
god, you gotta be kidding...?
if your post is not a troll, give me a break. Laws and checks/balances exist to keep a monolithic govt in control. Bush and Co are completely out of control, and do not really care about terriorism or our rights. They "care" about solidifying corporate control of world wide resources. US and the presidency are just a platform for it. Read anything written by Cheney in the last 20 years and it's all in print.
With this in mind..you don't think there is anything wrong about a fascist govt snooping on it's citizens? I hope you dont have any pics of your kids on your computer, or any links to democratic or independent websites, or anything about a "nonchristian" moral set.
You see, the thing is, when they go beyond the law, who's to say they'll stay within it when they start the arrests? Basically, it rots the very foundation for which this country was founded.
Govt needs:
"intelligent" foreign policy, not ironfisted kneejerk militarism
Transparency, not bush deceipt and lies
To support it's citizens, not the corporations that buy it.
To support the country's infrastructure, not put us trillions in debt with tax breaks for the wealthy.
blahblahblah list goes on and on.
Get your gd head out of the sand and see wtf our fascist dictator is doing.
Give a Bush a second term and living in the United States will be like living in China. Wait a sec.. you did so!
To directly respond to you, lemme put it like this:
If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?
Maybe you or someone else can specify some criteria for the terrorists 'winning' over our (former) way of life. If we don't spy on everyone, have the terrorists won?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Look. The word "terrorist" has a rather specific meaning. Raiding a mink farm and freeing the mink doesn't qualify as terrorism. Sabotage, economic warfare, street theater, whatever, but it isn't terrorism.
Even if they killed the mink farmer, that's just murder. (My point is not to minimize how horrible murder is!) But it's not terrorism.
The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing...
Wake up and go back to sleep, spying restricts your privacy.
The parallels to the 1950s witch hunt for communists (or the 1692 Salem Witch trials) are too close. Substitute "Dubya" for "Joe McCarthy" and "terrorists" for "communists". This administration has already clearly demonstrated how abusive it can be with intelligence.
We have witness the death of over two thousand American soldiers and we are responsible for tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi non-combatants killed because of the mismanagement of intelligence.
Do you really want to give Dubya a chance to fuck up again !!
So wait, Conservatives are no longer about Big Business and Little Government, or even Bibles in Every School, now it's about your right to listen in on your neighbor's call to 1-900-HOT-SEXX?
God help us all.
A text pattern finder? No way they're converting all that sound data into text.
That would be a daunting task, and pretty much lost work as the speech recognition engines are mostly crap and you would be search for strings in a sea of nonsenses.
It has to be some esoteric sound wave comparations algorithm, a cool job for the mathemathics geniuses out there.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
*crickets*
No?
I got nuthin...
Karma whoring
A reality of abolutes and black-and-white would be convenient for ethicists, philosophers and just about anyone else who wants to know the difference between right and wrong. You must know that it doesn't work that way. Invoking terrorism as an excuse for abusing civil liberties? Please. We may as well invoke the bogey-man as a reason to pay taxes or Santa Claus as a reason to be a moral person. Let's all put our shirts back on, set the can of Old Milwaukee down and take a deep breath. Civil liberties are at the core of a strong democracy, and as they are eroded, so will be a democracy's strength.
Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon. --Woody Allen
A better question might be: "Did we learn anything from the use of the 'Office of Censorship' which opened and read every international letter, postcard, package, telegram, or telephone call sent or received by US citizens from 1941-1945?" The answer to that would be a "Yes, it worked." Spies and sabateurs were caught. It was effective. And the program was terminateed when no longer needed in 1945.
arstechnica.com cannot be found right now.
and the article is not in the google cache.
WHAT right to privacy? You guys are as bad as the 2nd amendment guys. "A well-regulated militia being essential to a free state" means you get to carry a pistol?? A militia of one, huh? The same applies here. You guys are so certain that your individual right to a private telephone conversation is more important than listening in on targeted calls trying to figure out of some idiot has an atomic bomb in a suitcase parked in a closet in New York City.
And suddenly, you guys figure out there's technology available to tap calls. Duh! We've been able to do that since BEFORE the carter administration. You think THAT's something, you ought to see the resolution of cameras from space. Just hold that newspaper a little more vertically so they can read the articles, okay?
Thank God that supercillious weasel Kerry didn't get in and thank God for George Bush.
And when your democracy is dead because you did not defend it againt enemies foreign and domestic, you don't have a weaker democracy afterwards. You have no democracy at all.
Tell me again how that means I actually won, because I'm not seeing it right now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The difference that you missed between what the Bush Administration has done and what past presidents have done is this: FISA only allows warrantless surveillance of NON-US-PERSONS. Warrants are still legally required under FISA and the Patriot act for surveilling US Citizens. Which is why the FISA court was set up - so they could get a warrant in minutes if necessary, or even within 24 hours AFTER the surveillance had begun. So what's their excuse? Judicial oversight just too much hassle, with that minutes-long waiting period?
include $sig;
1;
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
The first is a "kinder, gentler" way of descri
If you are under investigation, i dont think that a bit of PGP will matter, unless you beam your thought to the phone.
A good parabolic dish across the street will pick up every word you say.
And if you REALLY call attention to yourself, it wont matter much what you said. The fact you said anything might get you tossed in the can for 'questioning'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough."
This is where I stopped reading.
Don't look now, but the terrorists are already here. The threat is clear and present on United States soil and no, I'm not talking about islamic radicals or Waco militia types.
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)
Look no further than the politicians in government who manipulate Americans' fear and terror of "terrorist activity" to undermine the freedoms of its very own citizens.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." (Benjamin Franklin)
$sys$droids
This picture has been making the rounds at Fark
http://www.maj.com/gallery/Nougat/Fark1/bush-cons
To be fair, all the references to that quote point back to one source
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You have no democracy at all. That equally describes the society where there's no expectation of privacy, and every citizen knows they may be under government surveillance.
How can you put "the mere Constitution" aside? The word constitute means "made up of". I.e. it's what USA was founded on. Every departure from the Constitution in history has led from bad to worse.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
About the only people being effective at addressing liberty issues are the National Rifle Association who spend almost all their money and effort on lobbying their causes and they only just manage to keep their causes out of the "don't care" bucket. They represent the minimum level of commitment to prevent liberty erosion.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The parallels to the 1950s witch hunt for communists (or the 1692 Salem Witch trials) are too close. Substitute "Dubya" for "Joe McCarthy" and *"liberals"* for "communists". This administration has already clearly demonstrated how abusive it can be with intelligence.
Does anybody think Cheney's ticker could take ~2 years of being President?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Maybe we should get the NSA to look into anti-slashdotting high technology.
If you believe the Bush administrations definition of fast food as "manufacturing" jobs, you can start speculating what "international" and "terrorist" means.
For instance if you place a domestic long-distance phone call, it could go over a satellite link. Well, orbit is international territory. Therefore using Bush administration verbal gymnastics, this would be an international call. And what about cell phones??? Well, all those signals go into orbit, so that could be an "international"
What about terrorists??? Well we already know that the Bush administration considers unions (the NEA in particular), peace activists and environmental activists as "terrorists". And many Democrats subscribe to ideas of unionism, peace and environmentalism. Indeed they believe anyone who opposes this war is aiding and ebetting terrorists. Ergo, Democrats are terrorists.
And what about any businesses that do businesses in country where there may be terrorists? Couldn't they be terrorists as well. Well I'm sure there is a lot of strategic business information that could be learned from "international" calls by "terrorists".
The fact that Bush refused to go through the FISA court leads you to believe that this court was unlikely to approve the wire taps they wanted. This court has a history of rubber stamping pretty much anything an adminstration wants.
The alternative thought is that Bush is asserting a new right of "presidential supremacy". This basically means that the President can do whatever he wants so long as he claims it is pursuit of his "commander in chief" duties. Frankly, this is the more disturbing option. This is the avenue that Hitler took.
If Congress does NOT oppose these actions, Bush will have successfully established a precedent of violating the law simply because "he feels like it". This would transform GW Bush into a dictator. GW Bush could decide to cancel the next election because of "terrorist threats".
If you are a Republican, please think long and hard about giving your approval to this. Now think whether you would approve this if it was Bill Clinton.
Finally, consider Bush's justification. There have been no terrorist attacks since Bush started the program. Well, consider that from the first WTC attacks in '92, Al Queda made no successfull strikes until 2001. A total of NINE YEARS passed between Al Queda attacks against US territory without a SINGLE illegal wire tap (at least during the Clinton administration).
I would submit that there was PLENTY of intelligence available to the Bush administration to stop attacks. Indeed, the Clinton administration managed to thwart multiple Al Queda attacks against the US without using illegal wire-taps (but no doubt using the legal (and secret) FISA court). John Ashcroft de-prioritized anti-terrorism to just under porn and prostitution.
Richard Clarke was screaming as loud as he could to get access to the President and take anti-terrorism seriously. He was ignored. The intelligence fore-shadowing 9/11 was forestalled. Somehow the Bush administration had managed to bring the US airforce to a state of unreadiness whereby it could not intercept a jumbo jet.
Please Republicans, take your party and your Constitution seriously. This man is dragging your party into ignominy. If you are a patriot you MUST support checks and balance. The President is NOT an elected king. The Presidents job is to respect and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President cannot just "make up" laws.
If you don't support checking the president's power, you are a fascist. If you don't like that label, than you need to change your position. You will bring this country to a state of civil war against those of us who will NOT bear a President affecting the same transformation on the US as Hitler did to Germany.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I happen to agree with your statement, however the FEDs look at it differently.
Using some sort of encryption might raise a red flag.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://www.police.govt.nz/operation/wharf/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior
All it will take is one undercover agent joining one of these protests and attacking the police/authorities and these policies will get more support.
I people are missing the fact that these calls were to a foreign country. Why would anyone expect calls, that can be routed through other countries, have the same level of privacy as calling your neighbor?
The NSA or the FBI could just work with the British equivalent of the NSA to intercept these calls legally. When you make an international call, it is not private and you can have no real expectation of privacy. If the signal bounces across a satellite link is it encrypted? I doubt it. If it gets switched between fibers in Diego Garcia what are their laws?
I would argue that Gilliam drew heavily from "1984". I would argue that 1984 was based on Nazi Germany.
I would argue that the Bush administration is using the same techniques as Hitler to transform Democracy into totalitarianism.
GW is a greater threat to the US than Osama Bin Laden. There is NOTHING that OBL can do to remove our civil rights.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
...that they didn't think they could get the FISA court to rubberstamp?
The FISA court has only turned the government down, what, twenty times in thirty years? And the law allows them to wiretap first and get court approval afterwards... and if the court turns them down they can appeal to another secret court, and if that court turns them down they can appeal to the Supreme Court, meeting in secret session with only the government in attendance.
The mind boggles. What could they possibly have been afraid to take to FISA court?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
This very thoughtful and detailed post should be modded up as informative. But no, because it takes a position contrary to those of the Slashdot Moderators it will at best be ignored as it is now or modded down as Troll or Flambait at worst. Perhaps Slashdot should attempt to get Moderators with some diversity in their views.
You can read a summary of the past 5 years of spying on Americans in their own country here. Included are reasons why Ashcroft chose the N.S.A. instead of the F.B.I. and a timeline of the whole complicated story.
Throwing blood on minks is NOT a "terrorist" activity.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.
I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder. Terrorist KILL indiscriminately at civilian targets in order to produce a state of fear. As goofy as they are, none of these liberal radical groups do this.
By the way, it is quite ironic that while the FBI classifies PETA, Greenpeace and ELF as terrorists, they DO NOT classify white supremacist groups who practice para-military operations and gladly sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Turner Diaries".
I have NO DOUBT that the Bush administration is spying on liberal organization by labeling them "terrorists". And I also have no doubt that they are simply asserting another authority that they have not admitted to for domestic calls.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
To listen a conversation, you need over a 1 Pentium IV if you want to add translation. Imagine how many you need to have all the telephone lines at once.
This is clearly not cost effective even for NSA. So the plan was to design a much more scalable and cheaper system so that instead of hundreds of simultaneous wiretaps they could have millions of simultaneous wiretaps. Also, instead of simple word detection, a more powerfull translation was employed.
So, the thing that they are listening people is not new for me. I always try to avoid say bomb or similar words on the phone just in case that they get paranoid (like me).
Kind of depends on who you think are the domestic enemies of democracy, doesn't it?
If we believe that we can defeat terrorism by reducing privacy, maybe the first place we should open up is the nation's largest employer, and no, it isn't Walmart. Perhaps if we had greater openness on the part of this group, it would lead to a stronger democracy and less terrorism. Isn't democracy defined as public understanding and participation in government?
I think the Patriot Act would be fine if it worked both ways. I should be able to find out what my representatives are doing the same way they can with me. What deals are they making with the energy lobby? What deals are they outsourcing on no-bid contracts? Surely if giving up privacy makes us safer you have no problems with that.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
According to Ben Franklin "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."
The choice you pose is a false one. There is a secret FISA court whose explicit purpose is to approve of national security wire-taps. They ALMOST NEVER deny a warrant.
So yes, you can have both. And aren't you just a little stupid for allowing GW Bush to BECOME Saddam Hussein for the saking of getting rid of him.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
WOW, talking about taking it out of context!
The court was talking about executive branch's ability to gather intelligence on FOREIGN SOIL!!! They deemed that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to foreign governments and their agents. Which is the correct reading and MOST of us here would agree to.
What the courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled against is using that power on US CITIZENS! In fact FISA specifically guards against and makes that illegal. To balance that it makes it easier for authorities to get secret warrants and allows warrantless searches within the first 15 days of a war and allow agents obtain warrant AFTER the tap.
They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
LIAR!!! Do you have security clearance? Have you seen the list of warrantless searches? No? Then how do you know? Oh because Bush said so? Oh, and they also said they didn't use Patriot Act on non-terrorist groups and guess what? They used it on Peace groups and PETA!
But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
LIAR!!! Were you there when they were briefed? No? Then how the FUCK do you know? EVERY senator (Republican & Democrat) said they did not get complete information on this. But you KNOW they are lying??
And NO, this is not a reason to hide things! It is a DAMN GOOD REASON TO NOT HIDE things!!! Because if they didn't then Bush would have some RECORD to bolster his statements.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
Man you are just a walking LYINGPALOOZA!!! You mean to tell me that Al Queda DID NOT suspect that this government was TAPPING EVERY PHONE call? Hello? Govt has been tapping Al Queda since the mid-80's. Are you REALLY that dumb to think that Al Queda was SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YA to find this out from NY Times?
Not only are you a liar, you are dumb too...
The only thing really interesting in foofahs like this one is that anyone is actually surprised that it's going on. Here's the deal:
.max
A: if it doesn't violate thermodynamics it's possible. If it's possible it's mostly a matter of money. If it's only a matter of money, you would do well to consider the financial resources of the United States Government, the greatest economic and military power in history/
B: if the president says it's legal, it's legal until proved otherwise. If the president want it to BE legal he will fire counsels until he gets to one who issues a finding he likes.
C: ergo if the president wants to do something and it's physically possible and won't bankrupt too many generations, he's gonna do it.
d: as has been mentioned, the "national security" clause gives the president the power to do almost anything w/o direct oversight. It's one of the reasons we have a friggin president, already, so we have an executive with the power to do things. Whether we like it or not, that's the way it's set up, deal with it or defenestrate the Executive branch. whinging is puerile.
Jimmuh did the same thang, you do know.
Since when does "force" mean "wiretapping"? The members of Congress from both parties who say they are appalled by this presidential grab for power say it was not included within the authority they gave him. Use of "force" usually means physical means of combat, i.e. war, against those from other countries. Can you point to the citation where the word "force" is equated with wiretapping of US citizens?
PS: FISA didn't "rule" on anything. FISA is an inanimate federal statute.
transcript? i'll do you better.
here's the video of his remarks
We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.
OH PLEASE. If someone is seeking to kill innocent Americans, then it should be pretty easy to get a COURT ORDER (from a SECRET COURT even) to wiretap them, don't you think? And the order can be granted RETROACTIVELY after the wiretap was performed!
Nothing defends spying on American citizens! If they are terrorists then a court will grant the request.
The rest of your post is mostly filler.. yes congress is often incompetent. So is the president. That's why there's THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
"I think we need a follup on Goodwin's Law."
That's not a bad idea... Putting U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestory in jail simply for having Japanese features is something worthy of facism. I think we both agree on that. But it does show the U.S. is capable of doing some pretty dumb things during times of war that turn out to be spectacularly bad.
However, it ducks the central point that ignoring laws that are inconvenient is hardly good policy and leads to widespread abuse, particularly with a president (Bush) who sees terrorists plots behind every light pole on Pennsylvania Avenue.
I'll ignore the idea that he's too detached from reality to make good judgements, because that would lead the entire discussion away from the central point that what Bush is doing is extraordinarily bad policy by any measure.
We don't know how they use the huge amount of data they gather.
these guys are dealing whith technologies whe have no idea of. How advenced are they in quantum computing ? What is in these satellites the NRO builds ? no one knows. They have been able to tap most of international communication for many years, this technology is very expensive, they must have found the best way to use it. You dont build spy satellites and you dont tap undesea fibers if you can't use the data you gather.
We can only speculate from what whe know they where able to do in the 80s and the few whe learn now. This organisation has a power over information that is unique.
"They hate us for our freedom" - GW Bush
Well if they hate us because we are free and have liberties from a totalitarian government, than taking away freedoms for the sake of FIGHTING terrorists affectively accomplishes there goal.
Well, that's GW Bush's world. Which tells you he doesn't think very long about keeping a consistent line of values and reasoning.
Don't kid yourself. The terrorists hate us because we're up in their business. They want us out of the Middle East. Increasing our presense in the Middle East only increases the amount of radicalism. Hence more terrorism.
That's why "fighting the there so we don't have to fight them here" is so stupid. Fighting them there only makes more of them.
This is probably too complicated for the average Republican to understand. I will translate to something you might be able to relate too. Remember Fantasia where Mickey makes the magic broom (Mujahadeen). Well Mickey is so pleased with himself that he falls asleep when he thinks the job is done (abandoning Afghanistan after the Russians withdraw). Well Mickey wakes up and finds the broom has overfilled the water (WTC, 9/11). Then Mickey tries to kill them by hitting them with an axe (Iraq). Well, Mickey didn't think it through because every time he kills a broom, 6 more rise to take it's place (Iraqi Insurgency). Eventually, Mickie realizes that the mindless use of force is not the answer and must turn to someone more learned in magic (diplomacy (UN)).
Tomorrow we'll make the same analogy, we'll just use drug dealers instead of terrorists.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Idiot. The founders divided power equally amongst the three branches of government. The executive branch has been gaining more power with each new administration since that time. They did not intend for this to happen. They also did not have forsight of communication technology, globablization, and terrorism. They also added protections for the press in order to safeguard our liberties. If you are happy with being wiretapped, then shut the fuck up and go fuck yourself. Let the rest of America be rightfully pissed for the illegal abridgment of their rights.
Yes terrorism poses a threat to all free societies. A government that ignores or worse, flaunts the Constitution and its guaruntees is the fasest, surest way to lose our 'free' society. Apologists such as yourself are certainly free to defend these traitors, but just make damn sure you know what you're doing. You really need to investigate whats going on - open your eyes. They're comin' for the the Gypsies right now. Don't wait for 'em to haul you off too.
subvert the dominant paradigm!
Defending against enemies foreign and domestic? Necessary, you're absolutely correct. On this point, I couldn't agree with you more.
You have a great argument; you're using a bit of a slippery slope. You're saying, "We don't wiretap illegally, therefore we get nuked to hell." It's not quite like that, and you're doing a bit of conclusion-jumping.
How about this? Let's say a house in your neighborhood is ransached. Someone broke in, stole some valuables and tore the place apart. Worse, police say that they think your house is next. The neighborhood watch has a meeting and decides they're going to post an armed guard on your porch at all hours of the day. They also give that armed guard complete authority to enter your home at the first hint of a disturbance. The guard is instructed to listen to all of your telephone calls to make sure he catches potential threats that you may have missed. In general, you give up a bit of your freedom for safety.
But look at what happened: you weren't the one who decided to have it this way, the neighborhood was. And the guard is going just a bit too far. It'd be nice to have someone watching your home, making sure there were no intruders, but there are other means; that someone doesn't have to violate your privacy to protect you.
I guess what I'm saying is, defending against enemies foreign and domestic is not only an admirable goal; it is also a necessary one. But we defend against those enemies to protect a way of life, and if in so doing we go against that very way of life, we have not won at all. There are other means to protect America from terrorists, and Americans should not yet be ready to allow Big Brother to listen in on their phone calls from Grandma.
Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon. --Woody Allen
I was reading the article and did something to invoke a page refresh. Which hung...
About ten minutes later, after a reboot of my PC, I find Ars is completely down.
Coincidence...?
I wish I had, then I might be able to make some sensible comment on it.
:v)
Sadly, Arstechnica does not currently appear in DNS space visible from New Zealand, as of a few hours ago. I have retreived an IP address from cache and tried to traceroute to it, but no joy.
I too would like to see a cached copy. Anyone?
Vik
Events and admissions like these always make it easier to 'follow the thread ' of conspiracy...
Echelon has always had critics who charge that the Gov't engages in corporate espionage for big business. Iraq is at least tangentially about control of oil reserves and transport mechanisms. What FISA would not theoretically approve of is US oil interests spying on foriegn oil interests. Similar to the Airbus/Boeing espionage accusations.
The government couldn't care less what your opinion is. As long as you're being a good citizen and watching TV instead of exercising your Constitutional right of free assembly.
... you become a "problem".
Once you start getting motivated to get away from the TV and meet other people who share your views
Problems are investigated.
If you're just looking to help those already in power, that's fine. That's acceptable.
If you're assembling to discuss ways of exercising your Constitutional rights to defeat the agenda of those already in power, well, I'm going to have to make a note of that, aren't I?
Good citizens stay at home and watch TV. Be good, citizen.
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap....requires a court order
Unfortunately this statement is true. Since the statement only applies to the wiretaps that the government talks about. The secret ones being ones they don't talk about. Sort of a Clintonesque defence.
Anyone else fund it hilarious we're arguing if FISA law was broken by the president? That's been in place since the 70's, and is blatantly illegal. Yeah, the judges say it isn't but you know what? It violates the spirit of every warrant related law or case ever heard Anyone shows up at my house saying they're gonna get a "retroactive warrant" would get a .223 bullet in their skull. I'm not posting this as some anonymous coward, and I'm not being dramatic.
Look at what happened with the federal gun sentencing guidlines. They just ruled that guns affect interstate commerce, and kept it. It's too late now to worry about your civil liberties. We're at the point where a National Guardsman would shoot you and your family if asked to. Any MP would electrocute your balls until you coughed up any information you want.
THAT is what is the downfall of our country. That we debate the little points, and never take a look at the big picture. We're sitting around going "ooh, no attacks for five years! Good job Bush!" when the time between major attacks is about eight or nine normally, as mentioned earlier. You really think anyone is taking over a plane without killing everyone on board? Box cutters aren't going to cut it again, so why are we taking nail clippers from old ladies?
This country is already a police state. You just don't know becaue you haven't pissed anyone off. Yet.
The French government bombs Greenpeace, murders an employee, and then puts pressure on New Zealand to get agents/murderers released from prison ...
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
And the US is the bad guy for wiretapping Greenpeace.
Yep, no bias here.
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Does this definition qualify Eco-Terrorists as "Terrorists"? "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
I think that the term Eco-Terrorists fits rather nicely...
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
In the Department Of Records:
"The Truth Shall Make You Free" - on statue
"Information Is The Key To Prosperity. A Ministry Of Information" - sign
above security stall.
"Help The Ministry Of Information Help You" - poster on wall
"Be Safe: Be Suspicious" - sign on wall
"Loose Talk Is Noose Talk" - poster on the wall of the computer room
Kurtzmann's office:
"Suspicion Breeds Confidence" - sign
Ministry of Information logos are stamped on many of the small items in
Kurtzmann's office, such as the teacup given to Lowry and the fishbowl.
These are nearly impossible to see on video.
Shangri La Towers:
"Happiness: We're all in it together" - Billboard
(This billboard is copied from a sign that appeared throughout the United
States during the depression.)
"Mellowfields. Top Security Holiday Camps. Luxury without fear. Fun
without suspicion. Relax in a panic free atmosphere." - advert on wall
above children playing.
"Reality" - graffiti on wall
"Shangorilla Towers" - Shangri-la tower's defaced sign.
"DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE, MUTILATE" - stencilled on concrete wall inside.
Mr Lime's Office at Info. Retrieval:
"Trust in haste, Regret at leisure" - poster on wall
"Don't suspect a friend, report him" - poster on wall (also seen in both
Lint and Kutzmann's offices)
Jack's Office at Info. Retrieval:
"Who can you trust?" - poster on wall
Processing Plant:
"Mind that parcel. Eagle eyes can save a life." - poster on wall
"Power today. Pleasure tomorrow." - poster seen when the house gets lifted.
Shopping Mall:
"Consumers for Christ" - banner carried by band in the mall.
"Utopia Railways" - ad in the street when Sam blows up the building.
"Keep your city tidy" - sign on the trash can.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
... although Echelon is a UKUSA agreement. In the UK, nearly all internet traffic is tapped by the Echelon network up the road at GCHQ. Every email address will have a record showing how many times you've said "bomb" and God knows what else. Up to 1 million citizens will have files that link to their email addresses, bank account numbers etc.
In the UK, of course, the powers that be weren't satisfied and so RIPA was born.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) allows the government to access a person's electronic communications in a very unrestricted manner, thus infringing in the privacy of their correspondance in a manner many would not tolerate regarding their postal communications. The act:
In other words, unlimited mass surveillance of the internet.
This info is derived from the excellent Magna Carta Plus site which details how British freedoms have been destroyed over the last 10 years.
Not content with that, our Dear Leader is creating a way of linking together all our records on British civil (and corporate) databases, by numbering us under the Identity Cards Bill. This will create a database on citizens' way of life which is 20x more intrusive than anything else the planet has ever seen.
Furthermore, British citizens be will required to buy a "Government Approved" identity to use public services, be allowed to travel in or out of the country, maybe even to vote.
Because the Government has successfully kept such legislation low profile, only around 1 in 20 citizens are aware of it. Those who are aware are terrified, especially as the Govt keeps threatening to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights.
How about the /. crowd reads the full report commissioned by EPIC from Duncan Campbell. It's not a wiretap when the NSA has direct links into the main routing junctions that move traffic in and out of the US.
http://cryptome.org/sigint-hr-dc.htm
It runs on plain old Windoze servers. More Xeons means more calls recognized per hour.
Call centers use this stuff. VoIP providers and ISPs can too. Sales reps will whisper that the NSA does, too.
It's not all that expensive; most of the cost is in the Xeons (or Opterons, if you're smart, but Government procurement is not - it's not like it's their money).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Osama is powerless to transform the United States into a totalitarian regime. GW Bush is well on his way.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
When the PATRIOT act was passed, conservatives blew off complaints that its provisions would be used to target people who were not "terrorists" in the sense that members of al Qaeda are terrorists. It was written off as liberal paranoia, and lawmakers assured us that these laws would only be used to target real enemies of the United States. Since then, the law's provisions have been used to target vandals, drug dealers, anarchists, and peace activists, and now eco-fanatics. Many people in law enforcement have been scrambling to define everything as "terrorism" so they can do sneak-and-peek searches, look at what library books people are reading, etc. It's exactly what the "liberal paranoids" were warning about.
Actually the murders only served 2 years and France let them go ...
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
"... In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
More importantly, the powers will be abused at EVERYONE. The way Dubya's kind of absolutist self-righteous thinking works, anyone who opposes him is impeding his effectiveness, and therefore deserves to be treated as an enemy. Some people really do see the world in black and white, or "with us or against us", as Dubya put it.
The problem is that there is no black or white in the real world. Everything is more or less gray, but if you've decided the world is black and white, and you believe that you're "white", then anyone who is not white equals "black". Ultimately, this 'thinking' extends to include everyone else as an enemy, since no one will be perfectly "white" according to our "white" believer. Here's relevant joke.
By the way, this is a 'revenge' karma-recovery post after another anonymous and cowardly troll moderator splattered me with his muddy mod points. I also feel like I should 'retaliate' by racking up a few extra positive mods. However, what I really want is to know who my spineless 'accuser' is.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Slashdot effect, or did someone pull the plug at Server Central?
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached ... ... ...
Where did I put my tinfoil?
% whois arstechnica.com
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SERVERCENTRAL.NET 64.202.100.113
NS2.SERVERCENTRAL.NET 64.202.96.102
% host arstechnica.com 64.202.100.113
% host arstechnica.com 64.202.96.102
% traceroute-nanog -A -O -U 64.202.100.113
1
2
3
4 dist4-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (67.114.50.66) [AS7132] postmaster@pbi.net 14 ms
5 bb2-g2-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.41.239) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 45 ms
6 bb1-p3-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.191.205) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 12 ms
7 151.164.42.77 (151.164.42.77) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 16 ms
8 core1-p8-0.cranca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.241.225) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 13 ms
9 core2-p11-0.crscca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.242.81) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 44 ms
10 bb1-p8-0.crscca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.40.62) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 27 ms
11 ex2-p5-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.41.109) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 33 ms
12 unknown.sjc.scnet.net (66.225.245.237) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 29 ms
13 ge0-3-0.j1.sjc.scnet.net (64.202.104.230) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 26 ms
14 ge-3-0-1.3940.j2.ord.scnet.net (205.234.205.97) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 66 ms
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * ^C
% whois scnet.net
Administrative Contact:
Server Central Network
Customer Owned Domain (hostmaster@servercentral.net)
+1.3128291111
Fax: +1.3128291110
2002 West Chicago Ave
PMB 101 / Hostmaster
Chicago, IL 60622-5548
US
% whois scservers.com
Administrative Contact:
Server Central
Domain Customer Owned (admin@servercentral.net)
+1.3128291111
Fax: +1.3128291110
2002 W Chicago Ave PMB 101
Chicago, IL 60622
US
- A.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Was this story surprising to anyone, really? I'm honestly having trouble believing the look of shock on average people's faces, let alone reporters and lawmakers. Only those who put the blindest of faith in government should be at all surprised, and I suspect those same people would be surprised by a game of Peek-A-Boo.
The Patriot Act essentially suspended the Fourth Amendment. Many people were quite vocal on the matter, but were labeled as anti-American. It's unfortunate that such sentiment is still widespread, and even Senators who are currently filabustering the Act are doing so on frivilous grounds such as the allocation of resources.
But spying on citizenry is undoubtedly an effective tool. Just ask China. What we're forgetting is that this is a proven case where the cure is worse than the disease. History provides not one example of a society made better, happier, or safer by such action, and many examples of the opposite.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I cannot access it in North Eastern United States @ 8:08 om Eastern Time.
I'm not endorsing this in any way at all, in fact I'm ashamed that he did this, but you are saying that this is worse than murdering 15 million of your own people and depriving them of property and liberty as well? I understand this is a bad thing, but acting in this polarized manner is exactly why today's political climate is as vicious and childish as it is.
But the problem is, they never start with killing 15 million people (side note: it doesn't matter "who's people" they are). They start with a little spying here, a little bending the rules there. Lie a bit a cause a few tens of thousands of people to die. Get your people into the positions of power, eviscerate the press (if it hasn't rolled over already). Come to some accommodation with the "opposition" ("play it our way or we'll ruin you" is always popular).
In short, make it so that no one dares move against you.
Then you can kill 15 million people, or even twenty if you're in the mood.
--MarkusQ
P.S. The polarization isn't causing the problem. The polarization is a consequence of some people realizing what is going on, and others squeezing their eyes shut and hoping it goes away.
"I understand this is a bad thing, but acting in this polarized manner is exactly why today's political climate is as vicious and childish as it is."
Can you think of a subject were both sides DO NOT engage in polarization? Even programming editors (Vi vs Emacs) isn't immune. Discussion for the purposes of enlightenment is dead! Dead I tell you! It's all about "your wrong, I'm right, end of discussion". Exaggeration, and ommission are the tools for doing it.
The answer to the mystery of the NSA snooping scandal - why did they break the law when it was so ludicrously easy to get FISA warrants? - appears to be developing: they weren't just wiretapping, they were data mining. They were using Echelon to 'Able Danger' the whole country (this is Poindexter's Total Information Awareness, which is supposedly dead, in action). The problem is that FISA was enacted prior to the current capability for data mining, and didn't anticipate how ubiquitous it could be. The reason they couldn't use FISA is that they would have had to obtain a FISA warrant for every person in the country. Data mining requires that you follow each link discovered by your snooping, and wouldn't work if it had to be subjected to FISA or the Constitution. The NYT article, now being spun as resisted by the Bush Administration (as if the NYT would publish anything without Rove's say-so), appears to itself be part of the spinning, a limited hang-out to cover up the bigger scandal.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
When we erode our civil rights, we dilute the sacrifices of all the people who gave their lives for the protection of those rights. Our military is hard at work right now giving their lives to protect our rights, and to try and give such rights to others who were oppressed. But while they do that, we, at home, erode the very thing they are dying to protect. It's kind of sad. Perhaps someone else can put it more eloquently.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
the first two of those sources you cited specifies "foreign intelligence." people are upset that this administration has been spying on americans.
the last one is just plain pathetic grasping.
I mean with requirements like "Fill an area the size of Rhode Island with servers and drives" one would think the hardware builders would be doing better.
It was already gone sometime around 4:00 PM Eastern time.
Maybe the UN does need control over the root nameservers, huh?
By implication, the action was taken without ensuring it was above-board. It seems to have been assumed that the President had the authority. However, early reports indicated that there were resignations from senior NSA officials, suggesting that even the NSA had deep concerns about the legality. And they aught to know the best, given that they have to comply to truly amazing standards.
Indeed, the President being "economic with the truth" (those from the UK or Australia might remember that phrase) would indicate that he was sufficiently unsure of the legality that even at the height of his popularity and power, he preferred to hedge his bets. All he would have needed to say was that the PATRIOT act did not give the powers suggested, and he would have been fine. He would have been honest AND would have avoided compromising his policy. By suggesting that the powers being asked about didn't exist - at all - he said something that he knew to be untrue.
Now, no sane person is going to expect people to be honest all of the time about classified matters, but as I noted, the deception was unnecessary. Whatever happens here on out, it won't be because of the actions (per se), any more than the flak Clinton suffered was because of the actions. People would probably be sympathetic on matters where no avenue of honest escape was possible - they usually are. When the public feels unnecessarily lied to (regardless of the reasons, motives, etc), it is much less likely to be tolerant.
It should also be considered that we're in the run-up to mid-term elections and politicians avoid Bad Publicity like the plague. (Actually more. A politician generally feels they can be cured of the plague.) At this point, renewal of the PATRIOT Act is seriously in question simply because those up for re-election who are too vocal about supporting it risk being chewed up and spit out. It is irrelevent as to how useful the act is or how important it is, because those aren't the concerns of the people who have the vote on the Senate floor. Their minds are solely occupied on the task of remaining on the Senate floor.
Either the issue had to be intentionally leaked at a time it would have been inconsequential - after an election, for example - or it had to be so totally watertight that the consequences could have been easily overcome. As it stands, the authority is unclear. Cheney has specifically stated that he feels that the War Powers Act and other such laws take too much power from the President, but that is a tacit acceptance that the laws are in direct conflict with what the President wants to do.
Again, that in itself was never a problem. After 9/11 or at the height of his power, he could have had such bills repealed. He could have had the laws governing intelligence gathering specifically amended to cover contingencies that were clearly well-enough defined. (If they weren't, then the spying could have been on anyone, even totally domestic. We're told that the spying was only on international communications and only on specified individuals. Someone, somewhere, had the specific instructions needed to decide if these criteria were being met. And if such instructions could exist in some office somewhere, they could also have existed on a bill to ammend one of the existing acts governing national security.)
I am trying really, really hard here not to bash anyone and to accept that some things I personally don't agree with may, in fact, be necessary for the good of the country. Necessary evil happens. I don't have to li
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It could be terrorism. The deliberate indirection of [violence against the innocent => psych => 3rd party effect] is the definition of terrorism. Some of the harsher sorts of "protest" and nearly all violent direct action are caught under that definition.
Arstechnica has mysteriously vanished or been slashdotted, could someone kindly post the text of the article so us who haven't seen it can do so.
:v)
Otherwise the original point of the posting may get lost and totally obfuscated in a redneck/libertarian shitfight. Some might find this advantageous, I do not.
Vik
Name: arstechnica.com
Served by:
- ns1.servercentral.net
64.202.100.113
arstechnica.com
- ns2.servercentral.net
64.202.96.102
arstechnica.com
Good thing I've got my dns records. If anybody has the article, I'll post it on my site regardless of the NSA, CIA, KGB or other ass*oles. (phiber, www.xatrix.org)
/. need to mirror any page it links to in article, in case the page in question gets /.ed to death, because it's really annoying to see an article that interests you and the main link has been slashdotted to death, and if you want to know what it really was about, you gotta rely on people's comments, provided that the link hasn't been google chached
You just got troll'd!
First, the executive order you cite, at the very bottom, says the following:
c ourt=us&vol=439&invol=1326
1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.
In accordance with that act (FISA) and this order. It does not intend to nor could it be able to override FISA. Please, read what you're quoting.
Second, Jamie Gorelick saying that the president can do whatever he wants don't make it so.
Third, U.S. v. Truong ruling that was cited in the sealed case was decided in 1978, the year the law was enacted. The actual events that caused the case happened in 1972, long before the matter was settled by the court:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
Now, what's interesting about the case that's cited as the alleged justification for complete Presidential powers to conduct warrantless searches for foriegn intelligence purposes? Truong, the person who was spied upon, was a Vietnamese citizen, and furthermore, had not established residence in the US. Not a "US person" acording to FISA. Thus, the scope of the ruling EXACTLY COVERS THE SCOPE OF THE LAW.
No warrants are required to spy on FORIEGNERS. Warrants are most definitely required to spy on US citizens.
Please, stop repeating the tired talking points of Bush administration apologists. This is a very serious matter, it's a crime, and it must be stopped.
I'm at war with cockroaches. Will it ever end? No. More keep spawning to take the place of those I destroy. The only way to win my war is to remove the conditions where they can live, and thrive.
The "War on Terror" is about power and control, period. The President was a very powerful man, an oil Co. CEO, who jumped to the highest office of one of the most powerful nations on the planet. Who has more power than a President? A President during wartime, when the title, "Commander-in-Chief" carries real power. Who do you have a war with? You don't really want to fight a country that has a descent chance against you, you might lose! But they can't be a pushover, either. That would just be a "Police Action". You need an enemy that stikes fear into the hearts of the people, but is insubstantial like smoke and shadows, or the Bogeyman.
The only way to stop "terrorism" (an ideology), is with propaganda and an opposing ideology. To control the minds of the populace. The easiest way to do that, is to have the people volutarily give up their freedoms, for safety, "for the children" *RETCH!*
So, we have someone who, by his apparent actions, NEEDS power. And circumstances JUST HAPPENED to give him the most undisputed power on the frikkin' planet. He has control over the military, industry, economy, and society, of America. And he is quickly removing the remaining checks and balances on his power.
The world is in serious peril.
DAMN! I need to quit listening to talk radio!
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
Comrade! Where are your papers?
Add the following to your /etc/hosts file (or wherever "hosts" resides on a Windows box) to get to www.arstechnica.com correctly:
205.234.175.175 media.arstechnica.com
66.225.202.210 www.arstechnica.com
Yes, you could simply point your browser to 66.225.202.210, but it tries to resolve the other host also, and this makes that work easily.
http://www.geocities.com/ri0n/ars_nsa_article.html
-glynor
Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese.
In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
We're talking about the president's illegal domestic wiretaps here, not his legal foreign wiretaps.
YES! A John Taylor Gatto reference on Slashdot!
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Yeah, so abviously this is only a facist bushchimpmchitler thing right??????????????
Does any one remember when good old Bill Clinton signed the Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval...
:::::::::::::::;
[Executive Orders]
[Federal Register page and date: 60 FR 8169; February 13, 1995]
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
From the NSA's website FAQ:
Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?
No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00020.cfm
The Arstech article was pretty good at explaining why this 'new' technology needed to avoid the restrictions of FISA. This monitoring technology basically multiplexes the tapping resources of the NSA to cover more and more of the entire population. Say you're trying to find a conversation by a specific person. This technology would let you scan the entire phone space and find him/her in seconds. You could conceivably monitor anyone anywhere on any telephone. Its pretty scary and cool.
But when this technology is used to suppress legitimate dissention, say McCain's attempt to ban torture, or Kerry's attempt to save ANWR then wouldn't you be crossing a line? Wouldn't you be just another dictator keeping your friends rich?
FISA is already a scary law that shouldn't pass constitutional muster IMO. But circumnavigating FISA is clearly illegal. Am I a legality snob? No, but there needs to be some transparency when it comes to spying on citizens. By having an ultra secret organization (the NSA), who's solely under the direction of the President conduct this gestapo type activity, its a system that will be abused.
The transparency, which is law, is the whole warrants and judges thing. People in congress with secret clearance can look at the list of warrants and see who's being spied on. There's some feedback into the political process. This is the important part of the system.
But right now we don't know enough, to decide how bad the spying was. It could conceivably be really very wrong. In order to implement this new surveillance, if it is necessary at all, one would need to setup checks and balances on it. There are ways, but they're not simple. Basically, you'd have to open up the technology to review and find ways of making the targets anonymous until it was determined that a clear danger existed. Soft triggers and targets would have to be reviewed by judges to avoid netting a false positive.
People keep making connections between past wars (WW2 is common) and this one. You might remember that in WW2 there was an Axis that wanted to dominate the whole world based on a vision of moral and cultural superiority. This Axis took over a large portion of the world and threatened long time Allies of the US with anihilation. I'm not talking about bombing a pair of sky scrapers, but complete and total control over the civilized world. It was an extraordinary situation. These Islamic terrorists do not advocate nor have the ability to take over any significant portion of the western world. Sure, worse case scenario is they blow up a city or two with some nuclear bomb (a long term possibility). Scary shit indeed, but they can't possibly compare to the Axis. The Islamic terrorists mostly seem pissed off that there are Israelis and that the west supports all these dictators in their countries so we can get their oil. Not exactly big deals except if your living in Tel Aviv or the CEO of Exxon.
There are ways to save Israel and still have a decent economy without controlling the entire of central asia, and spying on your citizens with draconian laws. But these ways require a compromise, something the all or nothing, gamble it all sensbilities of this goverment seem incapable of working at. I give the current US administration cudos for scaring the living shit out of congress and Americans to make us do what they want. But its time to get a backbone and stand up. I lived in NYC when those towers fell, and those people didn't deserve to die. At the very least, we should stand by those who died by standing up for the values that make us worth something on this planet. I'd rather die in a free country from a terrorist attack than live in a tyranny where my only right is to go spend my paycheck at a mall. The next couple years will be determined by what kind of life Americans want to lead: a free one that has dangers, or a tyranny that only partially mitigates those dangers. I thought this was a place where people wanted freedom.
And by that definition most governments are terrorists as well.
A blog about stuff.
The Feds do take white supremicists seriously: White Supremicists, White supremacist gets 40-year sentence, A Whiter Shade of Christmas
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity
I think every living black american would disagree with you on that one. The implicit threat is elemental.
If you look at the original article, the first line says:
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign
soil, officials say.
A blog about stuff.
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)
You argue that the present government consists of terrorists. Perhaps - although as someone who has at least some background in security studies, I'd disagree.
You define terrorism in the broadest sense, essentially as those who "manipulate Americans' fear and terror of 'terrorist activity'...," in the government's case to "to undermine the freedoms of its very own citizens."
Let's turn that on its head:
How about all of the media reports that have blown this issue out of proportion or been - to varying degrees - sensationalist or exclude details? There's no doubt that this is a major event, but look at some of the posts you see here on Slashdot: claims that we're all under constant electronic surveillance, that 1% of phone calls are under surveillance, that thugs will soon be at our doors, etc. It's ridiculous, sensationalist, nonsense that exists simply to manipulate our fear and terror of a government that has not done any such thing. Media exists for it and, frankly, posts like yours exist for it as well. Should we label you a terrorist for attempting to manipulate peoples' fear of a huge government conspiracy that doesn't exist?
Look at the original NY Times article - 500 people at any one time, and the numbers are between 5,000 and 7,000 total if memory serves. Has this affected me in any way, shape, or form? Was I under surveillance? Only for the few international phone calls I made while outside of the country this year. Were YOU under surveillance? It's doubtful, unless you've left the country or made international phone calls. And this is only one simple case - how many media reports a day make us think we're in sudden danger of becoming citizens in an Orwellian state, victims of identity theft, sudden death from a prescription, or what have you?
So, please, before you start accusing everyone of terrorism under a certain definition, wake up and smell the roses.
Taken directly from Drudge: "CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant." Any opinions?
This is SOP for the US Government for both Dems and Reps, whether you like it or not. To repeat: CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
When it comes to high tech, do you think I can find equivalent information about anyone on google? yahoo? checkpoint? visa? That's why identify theft exists. It's still the theory of connecting the dots and following the money. AND there's the easy way (collect everything, brute force pattern/rank searching like google) or hard/creative way (mapping, prediction, distributions like the semantic web). The technology is there and it's commerically available, being used today by marketing firms, news firms, and universities. Instead of catching the bad guys, it's catching your dollars!
The technology's been around, just never put at a massive scale (aside from google & yahoo).
NT
Here is the final paragraph from that exercise signed by Jimmy Carter:
1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.
Bush entirely violated this part. Bush did NOT act in compliance with FISA, he bypassed FISA entirely. He violated the spirit of FISA, which was originally crafted to prevent the kind of spying Nixon did on his political opponents. Bush claimed he only tracked 500 citizens with ties to al queda, his staffers could have easily complied with FISA if his intentions were truly that.
The point is that not a single Republican defender of his actions has given a reason why Bush needed to authorize such illegal spying that he couldn't have done within the limits of FISA. They give vague statements about protecting the country, but that could have been done easily within FISA.
make world, not war
The key is these are international communications. They cross the US borders, and the US has always exerted considerable authority over everything that crosses it's borders. US Customs is empowered to search and seize any contraband, pr0n or Cuban cigars, without violating the 4thAm. Less well known are the Export Restrictions (CCL & ITAR). The US can and does forbid the export of items, usually military or security related. This includes information, and obviously requires monitoring for enforcement.
Now there is this 1978 law setting up a secret court. Maybe Bush should've used it. But he also has another law on Sept 14, 2001 giving him extremely broad anti-terrorist powers. This is an area of conflict-of-laws, and normally the latest rules, but perhaps not if it is not specific.
Was there ever a court ruling on the legality of the "Office of Censorship" established by FDR? The "Office of Censorship" employed more than 10,000 people who opened, read, and censored if the Army deemed it necessary, all the international mail, telegrams, and telephone calls made by US citizens from 1941-1945. That's far more intrusive that anything Bush has done and it was all done to US citizens without so much as a single warrant.
And by that definition most governments are terrorists as well.
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
Like when France conducted paramilitary operation against Greenpeace, attaching a mine to their boat, killing one crewmember?
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Any legitimate security issue would have gone through the FISA court without problems. Somebody is hiding something they shouldn't have been doing, and it's probably going to be really embarassing when it comes out.
Wrong.
We're in charge.
That's the one and only thing that differentiates us from a dictatorship.
The fact that they seem to think that "THEY'RE IN CHARGE" is exactly what's got so many people who love this country so upset at them.
--MarkusQ
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.
m
... sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" ...
Actually, it is clearly a terrorist activity:
terrorism
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris
Anybody sporting a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook is primarily a threat to themselves. Even the orginal author admits it is a piece of crap.
--MarkusQ
There's a radio station near me that's decidedly conservative. They were talking about this issue and taking calls. Not one person had any problem with the government spying on people without warrants. "If we have to give up rights to be safe, I'm willing."
It's easy to say. Because really, who'd want to listen in on my calls or watch what I do online? And if they did, I have nothing to hide. Right?
The problem is that these restrictions on liberty, if left unchecked, are easily abused. There's no checks and balances. What happens if you're the subject of an unwarranted investigation? What happens when your phone calls and browsing are played back to an audience? What if it's used for other things, not necessarily "terrorism?" Whatever happened to privacy?
Sometimes the costs to our freedom are too high. The constitution is there for a reason. Willingly giving up the rights given to us by it is an affront to the people that died creating and protecting it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
GWB could not have done all this without OBL. He absolutely needed something like 9/11 to rally people around him and the republicans.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just insert (randomly) the words, Plutonium Implosion Trigger (PIT), into your phone coversations. ,dave
It forces the NSA to stop and listen to your entire conversation about the cat's litter box.
We're talking about the president's illegal domestic wiretaps here, not his legal foreign wiretaps
The whole issue here is that these are taps that do involve foreign communications. The other end of those foreign communications is here in the US. Communications with foreigners, overseas, is a foreign wiretap. The fact that a specific person/group that is already a known affiliate of, for example, Al Queda, is the local end of that phone call, is what brings the intel people to ask for authorization to find out whether those two parties are having another round of calls like the ones that organized the 9/11 attacks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Tastes like your slavemaster flouridated it!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Q: If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed
0 051219-1.html qtd at Billmon)
something like this legally?
GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with
members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not
we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was
not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get,
certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and
therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made
that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should
continue moving forward with this program.
-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/2
December 19, 2005
We didn't ask... because we knew you'd say 'no'. Best excuse ever!
Keep it up White House!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
People have argued about the legality of wiretapping, but it seems that the info may be available to vast numbers of bureaucrats, some of whom may be corrupt or have political agendas. They have the power to put their enemies on secret "no-fly" lists and who knows what other secret restrictions.
So if you need to fly on airplanes or your livelihood depends in any way on Federal contracts or funding, you better not say anything against the Bush-Neocon-Republican-Democat line.
than I can give is over here at Think Progress.
make world, not war
If anyone is interested:
"The alternative thought is that Bush is asserting a new right of "presidential supremacy". This basically means that the President can do whatever he wants so long as he claims it is pursuit of his "commander in chief" duties. Frankly, this is the more disturbing option. This is the avenue that Hitler took."
This is loosely the "Yoo Docterine" (google it). The short version is something like 'When the country is at war the Commander-in-chief has has carte blanche to do anything he believes will defend the nation."
For this to really work, i.e., cement power and undermine the state, you'd need some unending war. We have always been at war with [Mid] Eastasia! Quoth Bush: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror...] But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." You'd also need to insist, nearly all the time, in every talking point, in front of ever on-message back-drop that "Americans are safer," and "The President is doing everything he can to protect America," etc.
(oh, and Godwin's rule in like 54 minutes, not too shabby).
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
"The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing..."
No terrorism is the use of violence to instill fear in order to coerce changes in people's behavior. So if you burn down a housing project with the hope that the investor will fear building there again because of further economic losses, you are a terrorist, by definition. Just because you don't like the way a word is used, doesn't mean you can make up a new definition for it. If someone kills a mink farmer with the intent to scare other mink farmers into changing trades, that person is a terrorist.
Vote for Pedro
"Throwing blood on minks is NOT a "terrorist" activity.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity."
If your intent is to make a person fear you, and hence change their behavior becuae of that fear, you're a terrorist.
Vote for Pedro
Yes, I put that badly.
There was no reason to put Americans in internment camps simply because they or their parents came from Japan.
The fact that the U.S. Supreme court went along with it should make everyone ashamed.
And the further fact that no American of Japanese internment every committed any act of sabotage or treason just shows how hysteria clouds good judgement in the name of "war".
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The article was about the future of tech and not about the politics. All of the "Was the President right?" and "Can he do this?" replies are moot.
The discussion of the future a decade ago was this:
http://www.pgp.com/
Simple.
This new discussion, here today, is about future of tech and the NSA, (with the President ignoring the Constitution of U.S.A.), as in how WE can block an abuse our liberties THROUGH tech...
Make no mistake... when the blessed son has the absolute gall to justify a complete dismissal of the law then we, as techs, in this age, have to get serious. Enough of the politics. I don't want ANYONE to be able to read my own private communication with someone else throughout modern communication methods. There was a utopia when a glued seal on a USPS envelope was enough. Checks and balances were in place... then came email, cell-phones, etc... each with it's own particular loophole. WE know this as techs. We fought back... are we fighting back enough in December 2005?
Give us some answers.
cheers
front
Bullshit. (I put bold tags around the part of your argument that is presupposing a conviction or an omniscient chief executive.) If this were the case then they could just use a FISA or Title III warrant.
This is not an investigation into "known terrorist-affiliated US citizens" who are dialing Bin Laden's cellphone. At least several hundred US citizens are on this list at any one time and all international calls they make are tapped without a warrant. How do you think you get on this list? By being a "known terrorist"?
My guess is that your calls get tapped if you have purchased hummus in the past two months using a supermarket discount card!
And we're starting to see FISA judges resigning in protest as the NSA program has tainted the warrants granted by the FISA court.
I would love to explain to you the problems with obtaining FISA warrants illegally using information on US citizens obtained via warrantless wiretap. But there is yet another Republican scandal I must be off to.
> > Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity
> I think every living black american would disagree with you on that one. The implicit threat is elemental.
No.... unless they moved into a 99% white neighborhood. Or there was a burning cross in their yard or something. In
that case we call it racial violence, white supremacism, or hate crime. There's no need to reclassify it under "terrorism"
or even "domestic terrorism".
Why? Because, everything before 9/11 that wasn't terrorism now is. And stupid laws like the Patriot Act which were used
to stop real terrorism instead get used for things like murder/arson/bribery/drugs/illegal gambling. All of those things are bad,
but they aren't terrorism, and the Patriot Act hasn't stopped them yet.
You dismiss this too lightly.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Nice try at repeating a Matt Drudge lie. Matt Drudge chopped sentences off at mid-word to completely reverse the actual context of what was in those Carter and Clinton executive orders...
h eck/
From judd at the think progress blog...
"Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER..." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter's executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved."
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-c
I take responsibilty for posting a huge chunk of Judd's post at Think Progress. I think he'll understand how important getting this fact check on these lies around is. It's getting really old dealing with neo-con lies. Thank Gawd their days are clearly numbered.
It's miller time.
"Give me LIBERTY or give me death!"
I will fight Bush and his Miniluv to the end.
"We have only Bush's word that all of these warrant-less taps involved foreign intelligence."
The Bush administration didn't break the story, the NY Times did. You have the words of whoever leaked the story which, in spite of what the author may claim, is probably a source on the intelligence committee, more likely than not a member of congress from the other side of the aisle.
"There can be only one reason why Bush would not get the warrants - because he did not think they would be approved."
Speculative, simplistic, and doubtful. As is often publicized, the FISA court has only denied one request - there should've been little fear that the taps would've been shut down by a FISA court. Could there have been other reasons involved? A desire to keep the taps as quiet as possible, fears the court had been compromised, a desire to limit those who knew about them? I don't know and neither do you - it's speculation at this point. I would certainly like to see an investigation of this, however.
"Why did Bush think these taps would not be approved? Because some of them involved only US citizens. That's right, some of these taps were of US citizens talking to other US citizens and so would have been completely illegal."
Sorry, wrong again. The use of wiretaps against U.S. citizens suspected of espionage or other illegal activities is hardly rare or illegal. The question at hand is one of the procedure used to get these wiretaps, not the taps themselves. There is also the matter of who was running them.
"That means that they are impeachable offenses."
Good luck. Perhaps this is the dream of a fringe on the democratic party, but good luck getting there. Bush may not have the highest approval ratings in the land, but as a political reality, people still do strongly support the "war on terror" (take a look at support for torture - if a majority supports the use of torture in some cases such as a "ticking time bomb" scenario, how many do you think will at least lend some support to the use of wiretaps against suspected terrorists?).
Oddly, you failed to actually respond to my comment made to the original post. Perhaps you'd like to do that instead?
Not only were US citizens of Japanese descent sent to internment camps, Aleuts - also US citizens, though you wouldn't know it from the way they'd been treated - were also sent to internment camps.
"For their own protection."
Perhaps believable if conditions had been humane, the bureaucracy had not expressed open and recorded contempt, etc. But none of that was the case. The government ruined their homes, their livelihoods, and killed off a good number with preventable disease, malnutrition and inadequate housing. And said government also did its best to prevent them from helping themselves.
Of course, this is even less well known than the story of the Japanese-Americans.
It's amazing what we can do to a 10,000-year-old continuous civilization when we don't stay alert. (And at the point in time I'm talking about, we were pretty much adding insult to injury already for these people. Plenty more where that came from.)
[|]
Guys, Gals, other,
...ac
I think all of this is just more spin. Consider the following:
1. FBI already had several of the 911 pilots under surveillance before 911 took place.
2. National Security Advisor(s) had included the threat of hijacked planes to both Clinton and Bush.
The fact is not that we didn't know what was going on, it's that the government failed to act appropriately. The agent at the FBI who first raised question with the issue has been censured and is now out of the press.
We do not need more laws we need to enforce those we have as appropriate. However no matter what laws or privacies we give up now, if the government becomes complacent (and I have no doubt it will), we will be open to another terrorist attack at the most inopportune time. It is amazing how the questions and concerns of the 911 commission have gone mostly unanswered by the current administration. It seems 1984 is not so far off after all...
Next up the Times admits to newspeak.
"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if somebody knows about it."
If "wrong" had an immutable definition, I wouldn't. However it doesn't, so I do.
"Yes...it's good for them to keep some secrets from us. THEY'RE IN CHARGE! Parents keep secrets from children because that's better for them."
You want the govt to act like YOUR parents and citizens to act like good children. What happens when we inadvertently elect abusive parents? You know, the rock spiders and the sadists who pass their habits down through the generations.....hang on....maybe that is why we are still fighting wars and watching people starve, all live on TV????
"Of course you idiot liberals think and act like children"
Kind of ambigous given what you just said about the parent/child model of government. Do you mean: "Idiot liberals are good citizens" or "Idiot liberals are bad children", maybe "All citizens who don't act like good children are bad"????
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Isn't that what happens to any conservative speaker who visits a college campus these days? Maybe you should ask Ann Coulter. I'm sure you don't agree with what she says, but doesn't she have a right to say it?
Ann Coulter spews hate-filled tirades on an almost daily basis in her widespread column and in her countless network appearances, so she can hardly be considered an oppressed voice crying out in the wilderness. In one of her college stand-up routines, many students stood up and left the hall, prompting Coulter to yell: "Yeah, that's right, leave! The anal sex classes are just down the hall!" That's a little one-liner that would have made the brownshirts proud.
If GWB was half as bad as you make yourself believe he is, you'd already be dead. Michael Moore would be thin...in line for the "Showers" at Bush's Death Camps in West Texas.
No, but under gwb and his executive orders, his government has the power to detain you indefinitely without legal representation and even to outsource you to one of a prision in Guantanamo, Syria, Egypt, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Pakistan and various other countries in Africa and Asia; hey, now that is one distinguished list!
So until we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chambers daily, I suggest you rethink your position and keep your mouth shut.
And
So, go ahead, join what's left of the Taliban if that is what your truly belive.
Wow, spoken like a true west texas brownshirt.
Once we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chamber daily, it's already too late by several years, OBVIOUSLY.
What has happened in every country whose population has allowed its' government to take away its' freedoms for the sake of the illusion of a little safety is that eventually that population loses its' freedom with no benefit of safety. History only repeats itself over and over again because of ignorance. Vincible ignorance. Lazy ignorance. Mediocre ignorance. Ignorance creating fear, and this combination in turn creates a soul-destroying hatred which makes it impossible for meaningful analysis and discussion to take place.
Fortunately, the United States of America on the basis of an incredibly resilient document called The Constitution which cannot be destroyed overnight. But it can be destroyed with some time, a dash of power-crazed corporate whores, and a whole lot of ignorance from the population.
Oh, and speaking of ignorance, the Taliban controls around half of Afghanistan. The other half, the so-called good guys, the Northern Alliance (did you know that's their name, the Northern Alliance?), has in the past four years overseen the biggest bumper crops of opium in Afghanistan's history, most of it exported to Europe and Northern America. Right under the gun barrels of what's left of United States troops in the region.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Just sayin'.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
What really confuses/upsets me is the fact that people get so much more upset at the president for wiretapping people he thinks to be terrorists for the purpose of protecting our "safety" than they do for private companies (RIAA and Sony) combing through people's computers and personal information to see if we may have perhaps infringed on the rights of the oh-so-poor music and movie industry by downloading a couple files. Makes you think where people's priorities lie. Worrying about federal agents who listen to peoples small-talk on phones definately seems more pressing than worrying about the heroes of the music industry who find single mothers and prosecute them as a result of hours of looking through their own personal data.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
u sc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
u sc_sec_50_00001811----000-.htmlu sc_sec_50_00001829----000-.htmlu sc_sec_50_00001844----000-.html
...
This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act. Long story short, you always have to apply for a court order to wiretap. You can, however, do it without a warrant under the conditions provided here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
As long as there's no chance you'll be wiretapping on a U.S. person, in which case you're fined $10,000 and you spend 5 years in prison if found guilty. "Procuring" someone to wiretap under Title 18 of the U.S. legal code also gets you the penalty, of course, which GWB is guilty of.
There is another exception that gives the President to authorize electronic surveillence, searches, and seizures, without warrants, on any U.S. person or U.S. citizen anywhere at any time, with (each) authorization lasting no longer than 15 days, after which I suppose it'd be renewed.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
Pen registers and trap and trace devices record the telephone number of who you're calling, and who's calling you, respectively. Normally you'd go to jail for a year for using one without a warrant.
This exception can ONLY be used if Congress has declared war. We haven't declared war since World War II. Everything we've done since then have been, starting with Korea, I think, have been "police actions." Congress has approved "military intervention" in Iraq, but not declared war.
Bush went to Judge John Yoo, who told him that Congressional approval of the war on terror constituted a declaration of war. The Washington Post and most places I've read don't buy that crap. Thus, Bush's claim to freedom is rendered invalid.
Now, aside from FISA, here is a second place Bush could be jailed.
Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to
suit as provided in subsection (5)."
In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.
Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in
subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.
Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.
Back in the sixties, Harlan Ellison wrote about small acts of anarchy against the companies that have too much control over the population, like overpaying your electricity bill by, say, 37 cents, in the days when accounting and filing of records was done by hand, that little gesture would end up costing the electric company almost a 100 dollars, because they had to track down those 37 cents messing up their numbers, like a computer virus, but manual.
Then in the late nineties, some guy on Art Bell said that all telephone calls in the country were being monitored and filtered by the government using a set of keywords, and I think the name of the proyect back then was Eschelon, if you said the word 'kilo' in a phone conversation, 'kilo' would register in the system and they would have to look into it, making them use time and effort.
Some people say that if government agencies get into our liberties, our constitutional rights like privacy, etc, they've exceeded their authority by leaps and bounds, are now the greater evil and are no longer defending us but putting us in greater danger than before, and we should all start fighting back in large ways, like writing to your congressmen to motion to openly investigate these secret high-tech proyects and to repeal the Patriot Act, and in small ways, like flooding (slashdotting) their systems by using the words "Allah" or "Mohammed" or "Kilo" or whatever important keywords you can think of while on the phone or in emails, pushing their crap right back into their systems and flooding the damn thing.
Interesting, notice the phrase "but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section." in both the Carter and Clinton executive orders? Where the section is in the FISA law.
I think we all have a pretty good idea of CATO's reading comprehension, and now we can judge yours. Or perhaps only your judgment, in chosing to site a source as reliable as CATO.
Basically these new technologies are great tools, but the best results are often achieved from a combination of factors:
A. Humint (Human Intelligence) - enlisting agents from within suspected communities / social circles which report regularly to an operator. Cross examine reports to find similar leads.
B Sigint - (Signal Intelligence) - preferrably start snooping around your humint source's leads. All IP's to and from the suspect, his family, friends internet cafe's in the area, internet searches, phone calls made from home and surrounding pay phones, mail dispatches made and delivered, local police reports, etc.
Terribly boring work which yields results for 1 out of 100.
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.
Do you feel safer now America?
The terrorists knocked down the World Trade Center... and have knocked the Bill of Rights down to nine.
They've won... and our glorious President handed the victory to them.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Burning a building is not terrorism -- unless you're trying to influence a society, then it is. If you're influencing a family or company, that's not terrorism. If you're influencing a neighborhood, town or industry, that's where it starts getting grey.
... and when you really need to see what US law says is the legal definition. (1) the term ''international terrorism'' ...
..."
_ 2001.htm
You are mistaken, see "or any segment thereof" below.
Nice topic change from "terrorism" to "international terrorism". Now back to the topic, to refresh your recollection: "... Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity. I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder
The author seems to erroneously believe that terrorism requires murder, it does not. Property crimes can be considered terrorism, the FBI says "There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000
I hope you got a triple word score with that one
"And what about cell phones??? Well, all those signals go into orbit, so that could be an "international" :cough: call as well."
Sorry, its a popular misconception that your cell phone is somehow a satellite phone. Your calls go to the closest cell tower and from there to the public switched network. If you happen to be making an international call originating from your cell phone, well then in the process of completing the circuit your call could be routed over a satellite link or perhaps more likely a fiber cable on the ocean floor.
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
...of public keys: that the public keys have been signed by numerous third parties (signing parties, trusted individuals, etc.) or handed over in person from the owner of the public key.
# ss1.2
Afaik (IANACE) the above totally removes the possibility of the specific man in the middle attack you described and is basic knowledge about using for example GPG or PGP public key encryption: http://www.cryptnet.net/fdp/crypto/gpg-party.html
Nothing personal but it's pretty sad to see your claim modded up -- it shouldn't be hard to realize who did so (people without knowledge) and why (it made the puzzle of their worldview go "click!" and suddenly all the delusions made more sense to them).
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Rather than go off the deep end feeling surrounded by conspiracies, try to think like a bureaucrat or a lawyer for a second and then maybe you'll see the unmelodramatic reasoning behind things like Patriot Act, NSA wire taps and the invasion of Iraq.
This kind of process has gone on during several past wars and has gone way after the wars ended. There is a war going on now and it will end eventually. The president took congressional permission to prosecute the war as permission to defend the country how he see's fit. That's what a republic does during a crisis; it gives one leader the focused ability to become a temporary tyrant then removes it once the threat has passed. This is a normal process. Yes the potential for abuse goes up but so does the ability to detect and eliminate elements within your society bent on killing you.
On another note, the NSA, CIA and the DOD are not some great evil, imperial, cult of death squad brown shirts bent on US and world domination, nor are they mindless automatons blind to individual or factional aspirations. They are normal people with a variety of traits, philosophies and opinions just like every other citizen; well maybe with a bit more integrity.
There are politics inside but they drop them for the sake of mission and defense. If there was the slightest chance the President would attempt to use them in a way to break the law you would find a massive revolt occurring and some really nasty politics too.
Could this be what happened concerning the leak? Stay tuned to find out and don't pitch fits being impatient and melodramatic.
By the way, some people on the inside have been alluding to Gilliam's movie since it came out as being frightfully prophetic too.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=w ashfile-english&y=2004&m=April&x=20040420175008dms lahrellek3.475589e-02&t=xarchives/xarchitem.html
The problem is that "national security" no longer means what most people assume it does, namely the security of the American people. Instead, I think it's more appropriate to think of "national security" as meaning the ability of the Executive branch to do whatever the hell it wants, unencumbered by the Constitution, the Congress or the Judiciary.
Bush has asked several Congressman to explain to their constituencies how they would be better protected by not renewing the Patriot Act. If you look back on history, I think you'll find that the United States Government has caused more harm to its citizens by denying them essential liberties than have been harmed by any terrorist groups.
If Bush is going to argue that it's okay to violate the Constitution and deny people their liberty so long as it means they are "safer", then I'd like to remind everyone that a cage can be pretty damn safe.
If only the US Government agencies had any credibility left.
:v)
Sadly, with such a poor track record of providing information (WMDs, prisoner abuse, universal ICRC access, use of napalm and WP etc.) the rest of the world just cannot take the US governement's word for anything these days.
Vik
... seems that one of the (eleven) FISA judges is asking himself the same question and has resigned in protest.
s .ap/index.html
From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/21/spyjudge.resign
Considering the responses of Bill Kristol, the Wall Street Journal, and others to President Bush's affirmation of warrantless domestic spying by the NSA, perhaps it's time to separate the wheat from the chaff in this America. The Rude Pundit believes a new "contract" of sorts is needed between the government and the American people. Howzabout this:
"I (the undersigned) believe President George W. Bush when he says that the United States of America is fighting a 'new kind of enemy' that requires 'new thinking' about how to wage war. Therefore, as a loyal citizen of President Bush's United States, my signature below indicates my agreement to the following:
"1. I believe wholeheartedly in the Patriot Act as initially passed by Congress in 2001, as well as the provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Therefore, I grant the FBI access to:
"a. my library records, so it may determine if I am reading material that might designate me an enemy of the nation;
"b. my financial records, including credit reports, so it may determine if I am contributing monetarily to any governmentally proscribed activities or organizations;
"c. my medical records, so it may determine if my prescriptions, injuries, or other conditions are indicative of terrorist activity on my part;
"d. any and all other personal records including, but not limited to, my store purchases, my school records, my web browsing history, and anything else determined as a 'tangible thing' necessary to engage in a secret investigation of me.
"I agree that I do not need to be notified if my records have come under scrutiny by the FBI, and, furthermore, I agree that no warrant is needed for the FBI to engage in this examination of my personal records. Additionally, I agree that the FBI should be allowed to monitor any groups it believes may be linked to what it determines to be terrorist activity.
"2. I believe that the President of the United States has the power to mitigate any and all laws passed by the Congress and that he has such power granted to him by his status as Commander-in-Chief in the Constitution as well as the 2001 Authorization of Military Force, passed by the Congress, which states that the President can use 'all necessary and appropriate force' in prosecution of the war. Therefore, I grant the United States government the following powers:
"a. that the National Security Agency, under the direction of the President, may tap my phone lines and intercept my e-mail without warrant or FISA oversight;
"b. that the President may hold me or other detainees without access to the legal system for a period of time determined by the President or his agents;
"c. that the President may authorize physical force against me or other individual detainees in order to gain intelligence and that he may define whether such physical force may be called 'torture':
"d. that the President may set aside any and all laws he sees as hindering the gathering of intelligence and prevention of terrorist acts for a period as time determined by the President, including, but not limited to, rights to political protest.
"I agree that the Judicial and Legislative branch should be allowed no oversight of these activities, and that such oversight merely emboldens the terrorists. I also agree that virtually all of these activities may be conducted in complete secrecy and that revelation of these activities amount to treasonous behavior on the part of those who reveal these activities to the press and the citizenry.
"3. Finally, this document is my statement that I believe the President of the United States and the entire executive branch, as well as all departments and agencies involved, as well as all of its personnel, will treat these powers I have granted them with utmost respect. I believe that these powers will not be abused, nor will any of the information I have given them permission to examine be misinterpreted. However, should such abuse or misinterpretation occur, I agree that such
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Subject: A small editorial about recent events.
From: "Perry E. Metzger"
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:58:06 -0500
A small editorial from your moderator. I rarely use this list to express a strong political opinion -- you will forgive me in this instance.
This mailing list is putatively about cryptography and cryptography politics, though we do tend to stray quite a bit into security issues of all sorts, and sometimes into the activities of the agency with the biggest crypto and sigint budget in the world, the NSA.
As you may all be aware, the New York Times has reported, and the administration has admitted, that President of the United States apparently ordered the NSA to conduct surveillance operations against US citizens without prior permission of the secret court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISC"). This is in clear contravention of 50 USC 1801 - 50 USC 1811, a portion of the US code that provides for clear criminal penalties for violations. See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/us c_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him.
There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane.
There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the FISC -- even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization.
The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally.
Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it.
Our President has chosen to declare himself above the law, a dangerous precedent that could do great harm to our country. However, without substantial effort on the part of you, and I mean you, every person reading this, nothing much is going to happen. The rule of law will continue to decay in our country. Future Presidents will claim even greater extralegal authority, and our nation will fall into despotism. I mean that sincerely. For the sake of yourself, your children and your children's children, you cannot allow this to stand.
Call your Senators and your Congressman. Demand a full investigation, both by Congress and by a special prosecutor, of the actions of the Administration and the NSA. Say that the rule of law is all that stands between us and barbarism. Say that we live in a democracy, not a kingdom, and that our elected officials are not above the law. The President is not a King. Even the President cannot participate in a felony and get away with it. Demand that even the President must obey the law.
Tell your friends to do the same. Tell them to tell their friends to do the same. Then, call back next week and the week after and the week after that until something happens. Mark it in your calendar so you don't forget about it. Politician
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Pentagon Will Review Database on U.S. Citizens
Protests Among Acts Labeled 'Suspicious'
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 15, 2005; A01
Pentagon officials said yesterday they had ordered a review of a program aimed at countering terrorist attacks that had compiled information about U.S. citizens, after reports that the database included information on peace protesters and others whose activities posed no threat and should not have been kept on file.
The move followed an NBC News report Tuesday disclosing that a sample of about 1,500 "suspicious incidents" listed in the database included four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, some aimed at military recruiting.
Although officials defended the Pentagon's interest in gathering information about possible threats to military bases and troops, one senior official acknowledged that a preliminary review of the database indicated that it had not been correctly maintained.
"On the surface, it looks like things in the database that were determined not to be viable threats were never deleted but should have been," the official said. "You can also make the argument that these things should never have been put in the database in the first place until they were confirmed as threats."
The program, known as Talon, compiles unconfirmed reports of suspected threats to defense facilities. It is part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to gather counterterrorism intelligence within the United States, which has prompted concern from civil liberties activists and members of Congress in recent weeks.
To some, the Pentagon's current efforts recall the Vietnam War era, when defense officials spied on anti-war groups and peace activists. Congressional hearings in the 1970s subsequently led to strict limits on the kinds of information that the military can collect about activities and people inside the United States.
The review of the program, ordered by Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone, will focus on whether officials broke those rules, a Pentagon statement said. The regulations require that any information that is "not validated as threatening must be removed from the TALON system in less than 90 days," it said.
The Pentagon stopped short of officially acknowledging fault but strongly implied some information had been mishandled. "There is nothing more important to the U.S. military than the trust and goodwill of the American people," said the statement. "The Department of Defense . . . views with the greatest concern any potential violation of the strict DoD policy governing authorized counter-intelligence efforts."
The Talon database -- and several affiliated programs -- has been described by officials as a sort of neighborhood watch for the military, an important tool in trying to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the military.
Under the programs, civilians and military personnel at defense installations are encouraged to file reports if they believe they have come across people or information that could be part of a terrorist plot or threat, either at home or abroad. The Talon reports are fed into a database managed by the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, a three-year-old Pentagon agency whose budget and size are classified.
The Talon reports -- the number is classified, officials said -- can consist of "raw information" that "may or may not be related to an actual threat, and its very nature may be fragmented and incomplete," according to a 2003 memo signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.
Cambone's review came one day after a sample of the CIFA database, containing reports of 1,519 "suspicious incidents" between July 2004 and May 2005, was disclosed first by NBC News, and by William M. Arkin, a former military intelligence officer and author, on his washingtonpost.com blog Early Warning.
Arkin said he obtained the information, which included a list of entries in the CIFA database, fr
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Plagiarized from here.
Published Wednesday, December 14, 2005 by Jacob | Post to Del.icio.us
If you are an active Internet user and under the age of 25 (or 30), you probably fit in one of two categories; either [1] You have tried social networking, but didn't really get what the buzz was about, or [2] you get it, you dig it, and you sit for hours scouring, posting comments and photos, and clicking refresh obsessively.
Everyone has heard of Facebook. At almost 2 years old, it's growth is staggering.
Take a look at the Repeat Usage statistics, in particular and tell me that this isn't a craze bordering on obsession. 70 percent of users return on a daily basis to a site that really isn't all that dynamic. There are no blogs; just personal info, a place to post blurbs on users' "wall", and now pictures. With websites like Facebook and MySpace gaining an almost-disturbing amount of popularity, it seems that our desire for networking has trumped our sound-thinking, skepticism and desire for privacy.
I started thinking about this issue recently, and the question just keeps popping up: Why do we place so much trust in the creators of these websites? Since the emergence of "Web 2.0", it seems that with a simple "We're not evil, try our Beta" everyone is falling over themselves to shell out as much information as it takes.
Stop and think about Facebook for one minute. A 21-year-old Harvard student starts a networking site for college students, and now there are over 5 million users, many of which have probably never looked at the Privacy Policy. After all, Facebook is fun, so they freely post their name, address, school, concentration, political affiliation, friends, plans and even photos in which faces are linked to profiles. Comforted by the idea that this info isn't crawled by search engines, the fact remains that membership is only limited by the ownership of an ".edu" e-mail address (the Wall Street Journal expressed concerns about this, in fact).
What about the Privacy Policy? In the Help Section of Facebook it says, "Facebook respects your privacy. We don't distribute your user information to third parties" followed by "Read more about our Privacy Policy." Click the link and it says oh yeah, one more thing: we just might share your info, and it "may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies." This is a pretty typical policy, actually. It's in the section entitled "The Information We Collect" that it gets a little disconcerting.
It goes on to explain cookies, etc., but then ends with this vague third mode of data collection:
I'm not sure what that means, but I do remember something about AOL's updated terms of service.
I'm not usually big on conspiracy theories, but I point out Facebook's privacy policy to highlight some other interesting aspects of this company. It has been just a few months since Accel Partners anno
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Many Tools of Big Brother Are Already Up and Running
By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ
In the Pentagon research effort to detect terrorism by electronically monitoring the civilian population, the most remarkable detail may be this: Most of the pieces of the system are already in place.
Because of the inroads the Internet and other digital network technologies have made into everyday life over the last decade, it is increasingly possible to amass Big Brother-like surveillance powers through Little Brother means. The basic components include everyday digital technologies like e-mail, online shopping and travel booking, A.T.M. systems, cellphone networks, electronic toll-collection systems and credit-card payment terminals.
In essence, the Pentagon's main job would be to spin strands of software technology that would weave these sources of data into a vast electronic dragnet.
Technologists say the types of computerized data sifting and pattern matching that might flag suspicious activities to government agencies and coordinate their surveillance are not much different from programs already in use by private companies. Such programs spot unusual credit card activity, for example, or let people at multiple locations collaborate on a project.
The civilian population, in other words, has willingly embraced the technical prerequisites for a national surveillance system that Pentagon planners are calling Total Information Awareness. The development has a certain historical resonance because it was the Pentagon's research agency that in the 1960's financed the technology that led directly to the modern Internet. Now the same agency -- the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa -- is relying on commercial technology that has evolved from the network it pioneered.
The first generation of the Internet -- called the Arpanet -- consisted of electronic mail and file transfer software that connected people to people. The second generation connected people to databases and other information via the World Wide Web. Now a new generation of software connects computers directly to computers.
And that is the key to the Total Information Awareness project, which is overseen by John M. Poindexter, the former national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. Dr. Poindexter was convicted in 1990 of a felony for his role in the Iran-contra affair, but that conviction was overturned by a federal appeals court because he had been granted immunity for his testimony before Congress about the case.
Although Dr. Poindexter's system has come under widespread criticism from Congress and civil liberties groups, a prototype is already in place and has been used in tests by military intelligence organizations.
Total Information Awareness could link for the first time such different electronic sources as video feeds from airport surveillance cameras, credit card transactions, airline reservations and telephone calling records. The data would be filtered through software that would constantly look for suspicious patterns of behavior.
The idea is for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to be alerted immediately to patterns in otherwise unremarkable sets of data that might indicate threats, allowing rapid reviews by human analysts. For example, a cluster of foreign visitors who all took flying lessons in separate parts of the country might not attract attention. Nor would it necessarily raise red flags if all those people reserved airline tickets for the same day. But a system that could detect both sets of actions might raise suspicions.
Some computer scientists wonder whether the system can work. "This wouldn't have been possible without the modern Internet, and even now it's a daunting task," said Dorothy Denning, a professor in the Department of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. Part of the challenge, she said, is knowing what to look for. "Do we really know enough about the precursors to terrorist activity?" she said.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
CIA & NSA on ECHELON
ECHELON: America's Secret Global Surveillance Network
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
My personal belief is that Al Gore would have taken terrorism seriously. How seriously?? Well, probably somewhere above pornography and prostitution. Or to be specific, Al Gore's Attorney General wouldn't have done what John Ashcroft had done.
The prioritization that Ashcroft put on anti-terrorism made approving the appropriate investigations difficult. Worse yet, GW Bush demoted Richard Clarke (servent of 4 administrations and anti-terrorism czar under Clinton) from a cabinet level position to a subordinate of Condeleeza Rice. Clarke's crusade to get GW Bush to take Osama Bin Laden seriously read like a Dilbert cartoon. Meetings and meetings for the administration to create a "grand strategy" before they could take ANY action. Worse yet, the anti-terrorism czar was no longer a "czar" and no effective power to do anything without going through other cabinet secretaries.
There was PLENTY of intelligence pointing to the 9/11 attacks. Foreign governments were warning the US that something was going to happen and somehow the staff of Odigo got "reliable evidence" to evacuate their entire crew before the attack.
Additionally, the Bush administration also killed the investigation into the Cole bombing. That was a "Clinton thing" and they weren't interested.
The Bush administration was either criminally negligent or willfully evil. Had Al Gore been president, 9/11 would never had happened. Just like Project Bojinka and the Millenium Bomb Plot never happened because the Clinton administration made anti-terrorism a priority.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Why don't you read those things instead of relying on Drudge Report interpretations?
Those are references to the FISA act. The "warrantless searches" are in reference to a provision in the FISA LAW that allows for retro-active warrant application to the FISA court up to 72 hours after an "emergency wire tap".
The executive orders effectively state that employees of the executive branch are instructed to issue warrants according to the FISA law when appropriate. Yes, this is a necessary step since the president is the boss and you cannot act without the President delegating things to you.
What GW Bush did is to COMPLETELY bypass the FISA court. This is a violation of statutory law and an infringement of the 4th amendment. It is an impeachable offense for the president to unilaterally "redefine" the law. CONGRESS makes the laws. The president has to follow them.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Not the government, the Bush Crime Family.
Bush did everything he could to blind the US to any terrorist attack prior to 9/11. He even managed to disable the air force's capability to intercept a slow moving plane (jumbo jets).
Shit, the Air Force intercepted the jet of a GOLFER when it went off course. Somehow air traffic controllers managed to communicate with NORAD that day. But apparantely all those capabilities failed when GW Bush took office.
And of course, the Air Force was conveniently running a drill that simulated EXACTLY what was happening on 9/11. So the people at NORAD were "confused" that frantic calls were part of the drill. Of course this is incredibly stupid to assert that the Air Force cannot drill without a capability to tell the difference between the simulation and a REAL ATTACK. Geez, if this was the case the Soviet Union could have annhialated the United States just by knowing when NORAD would be running a missle drill. The Air Force isn't this stupid. But seamingly, rank and file conservatives ARE!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
An interesting bit of information about Ann Coulter and her statement "Yeah, that's right, leave! The anal sex classes are just down the hall!". Her motivation is obviously money, so I am surprised that the opportunity was not taken to subject her to a civil law suit for that comment, as it was obviously derogatory and libelous (it would also be politcaly destructiv)e.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The whole issue here is that these are taps that do involve foreign communications.
Your claim has been thoroughly debunked. The law doesn't stipulate that only one end of the conversation has to be foreign and the other can be a domestic tap on a US citizen. Both ends must be foreign for this to be legal. FISA specifically states that the president can authorize a warrantless order only if there is "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". US Code Title 50, 1802.
When tyranny comes, it will come as a protector.
stolen from daily kos -- i think:
How many of these apply?
* Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
* Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
* Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
* Supremacy of the Military
* Rampant Sexism
* Controlled Mass Media
* Obsession with National Security
* Religion and Government are Intertwined
* Corporate Power is Protected
* Labor Power is Suppressed
* Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
* Obsession with Crime and Punishment
* Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
* Fraudulent Elections
* Corporations and Government Merge
Bush himself is only a sock puppet and can be replaced, but if his handlers think they might lose power, then they might try to pull something like that. I guess it also depends on how deeply the voting machine scandal is exposed by the time the 2008 election gets underway next year.
A possible replacement might be Conan the Governator in California, though some very fundamental laws must change to allow a naturalized citizen to become president. Another might be out dear leadr Chairman Bill, but he would be harder to control and does have his own agenda. On the other hand, it is a narrow agenda and unlikely to conflict with Halliburton and co.'s. He has been running increasingly heavy concurrent PR campaigns to remake his public image and has been distancing himself from the press and the public, which could be a prelude to a more open role in politics.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
you fail to point out that both clinton and carter's orders include this lil gem..
if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
meaning that any searches have to comply with FISA. so no, neither president violated FISA like bush is doing.
way to try to, as the president puts it, 'catapult the propaganda' tho. golf claps all around.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Most of what Hoover did was create FBI files. He might have arrested a few people, but its the courts that would have convicted, sentenced, and reviewed over and over again through the appeals process -- along with the press who would seek to expose unlawful convictions. Hoover didn't do all that much to most people.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's really hard to prove a negative. Hard to prove that because we took this step and no terrorist attack happened, that it was because of this step.
So what do you do instead? Wait for the next attack to happen and then curcify the current administration by telling them in hindsight this is what you should have been doing all along?
Don't even begin to tell me that would be a great policy. Then all we're doing is defending against the last terrorist attack -- not the next one.
Nom, you're a smart person, you use logic well.
Thanks. Now please consider what I've just said. The liberal element screams out against ever step of prevention claiming it's clearly not necessary because you can't prove it will prevent an attack. I don't want to wait for the next large scale attack to happen before I can shove it down their throats on how wrong they are. The very fact that there hasn't yet been another attack is proof enough to me that the steps we're taking are pretty effective. They will certainly fail some day, but we'll have less attacks than if we did nothing at all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
See my post, The network architecture of treason. As you will see from looking at the drafting of the Patriot Act, the "wiretap" is obfuscatory, another piece of Republican misdirection.
You also clearly do lose if they blow up your home city.
Uh, huh.
Or if a meteorite hits me.
Thus far, the rate of meteorites hitting humans (one on record) has exceeded that of terrorists blowing up cities (none on record), and while you can paint a terribly heartstring-tugging picture using either device, I'm not worried about either.
And don't think the terrorists want to co-exist with us if we just let them rule the Middle East.
"Terrorists" rule the Middle East?
You mean Arabs?
Or perhaps Muslims?
The people running around blowing things up are largely people pissed off because they *don't* have political power other than by blowing things up. Are Palestinian militants "ruling" Israel?
They tolerate no one except themselves...
Ah. You seem to know a hell of a lot about these terrorists. You spend time with them? Have you been active in Middle Eastern politics? Or are you just talking out your ass because Fox News keeps telling you absurd scary things about them because terrorism is currently politically useful?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
First off, I agree with most of you comments. However... PETA has had ties to, and provided money to, domestic terrorist groups like the ALF & ELF . While PETA itself doesn't classify as a terrorist organization, there's enough overlap in membership to make some suspicious...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Oh, and Over 3,400 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2005 in the U.S. Sure, give me a "but look at how many Iran.." answer if it makes you feel better. And here we are again, The Rhetoric. If you are not with GWB, you are with THEM. Black is the new gray.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
It's probably Canada. That is, if you're an individual.
If you're a corporation, than China is probably free-est. But the US ranks up there in BOTH categories
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
LIAR!!! Do you have security clearance? Have you seen the list of warrantless searches? No? Then how do you know?
Do YOU? NO? Then how do YOU know?
LIAR!!! Were you there when they were briefed? No? Then how the FUCK do you know?
Were YOU there when they were briefed? NO? Then you don't know crap about what they were told, either!
The big thing to remember about crap like this is that unless you have first-hand evidence in your hands from eye-witnesses, you're in no position to be calling anyone a liar about anything. You're on the exact same ground as they, for the exact same reason. Newspaper articles and editorials don't count as "evidence", unless the writer was there.
Geez. It's not hard to understand.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.