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.'"
"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.
err ... I don't know about you, but "groups like Greenpeace and PETA" are in my mind "prone" to terrorism. Surely not every member, and probably not 99%, but I'd like to suggest that maybe their members' likelihood of participating in terrorist-type ativites would be higher than your average person's? Sure, they might have a point on some of their crusades, but PETA is sort of considered a joke (at least where I'm from).
I'm not saying that it's necesarrily right what the NSA may have (or more like definitely) did, but there is some sort of logic there. PETA may be a great organization, but it does attract the sort of radical viewpoints that can lead to that sort of activity.
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.
Except that Bush lied about it to the American public. From the whitehouse website via salon.com:
[["Now, by the way," he said, "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."
That certainly seems to be different from what Bush is saying now -- that over the past three years, he has authorized and repeatedly reauthorized the "interception" of communications without warrants.]]
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
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
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;
No, the issue is that liberties are being taken with regard to surveillance.
The National Security Agency is one of the United States' most powerful weapons, able to intercept nearly any communication. Therefore, it is ONLY for use against foreign targets. Even mentioning the name of a US Citizen that was intercepted from a foreign source is extremely tedious. By turning the NSA against the American people, the government has violated the trust of Americans in the agency.
Situations like this could be potentially disastrous for the American people. Bush has, quite honestly, scared the shit out of me--I knew before that he would attempt to change the law in order to spy on americans (the Patriot Act), but this is a clearcut violation of the law.
Ride the skies
So far I have listened carefully for any rational justification from the Bush administration, and the ONLY thing I've heard is vague assurances that "I've got the authority to do this; it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and we're guarding your civil liberties." And some bogeyman story from Cheney that the measures "saved thousands of lives." I'm sorry if you take this as partisan, but this administration doesn't have the credibility to make unsubstantiated claims like that any more.
What I'm eagerly awaiting is some rational explanation of why the President thought he had the legal right to do this. If he can present a plausible argument, the next step would be to pass a new law to convince him otherwise. But if he clings to the vague notion that wartime places him above the law, what is to be done?
The other mink ranchers might disagree especialy after the third or fourth murder; let's not leave out the Dermatologist that get's murdered because he has the same last name as an OB/Gyn that does an ocasional abortion. Plenty to go arround for both the right and left here.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
Is you serious or is this just extremely subtle sarcasm? I hope sarcasm, because true Republicans do not support a secret govt branch that operates without check and spies on US citizens. That is why so many powerful republicans are speaking out against the executive branch's actions.
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