Slashdot Mirror
NSA Data Mining Much Larger Than Reported
silassewell writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that the "volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged." The NSA gained the cooperation of many American telecommunication companies after 9/11 to access streams of communication, both domestic and international, as a part of a presidentially approved program to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity.
I Soviet America, the phone listens to you.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Please work to make the system secure, even from government intrusion.
Governments come and go.. no need to drag yourself into their mess.
I've always wondered what huge companies get by turning over data to the Feds. Companies never do anything to "make the world a better place" unless they are getting something in return... reduced regulation? maybe tax reductions?
All I know is that democracy dies behind closed doors. What exactly is going on in this country?
This is EXACTLY why I'm learning Spanish! Costa Rica by the year 2010, baby.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
The people over at Ars Technica have a great little article about this whole fiasco concerning the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrent...
8 .html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-580
From the article:
"Now let's take a look a statement of former senator Bob Graham (D-FL), who was one of the few senators to be briefed on the program. From a new Washington Post article:
"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches."
and
" This system's [TIA] purpose would be to monitor communications and detect would-be terrorists and plots before they happen... This project is not interested in funding "evolutionary" changes in technology, e.g., bit-step improvements to current data mining and storage techniques. Rather, the amount of data that the directors are anticipating (petabytes!) would require massive leaps in technology (and perhaps also some massive leaps in surveillance laws). According to DARPA, such data collection "increases information coverage by an order of magnitude," and ultimately "requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models.""
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
This administration has always been pro-mining (and drilling), so this should be no surprise.
Learn to love Alaska
Bush Lies Watch
FTFA:
"If they get content, that's useful to them too, but the real plum is going to be the transaction data and the traffic analysis," he said. "Massive amounts of traffic analysis information - who is calling whom, who is in Osama Bin Laden's circle of family and friends - is used to identify lines of communication that are then given closer scrutiny."
This is just the sort of sensitive information that the Whitehouse did not want leaked. Now Osama is going to change his long distance calling plan.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
How can we as the American people cope with a President that doesn't even acknowledge that what he's doing is illegial? How can we further cope with a Congress that hasn't already 'stopped the presses' by calling for immediate hearings on the matter? I don't mean hearings next week, or next month. I want hearings now. This is a grave threat to our liberties, and I want it addressed right now.
Of course, this President speaks about 'freedom', but does 'freedom' include not being able to openly discuss laws and policies?
Oh, and the 'fanboy' contingent that believes that civil liberties must be curtailed in a time of conflict need not reply, because I'm not listening, and I doubt Thomas Jefferson would listen to it either.
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
Yes, you, the voter. You've allowed this to happen in every vote you made for an authoritarian politician -- I can name ONE that has followed their oath (Dr. Ron Paul of Texas http://house.gov/paul )
The telecommunications companies are regulated by Congress, illegally and unconstitutionally. Communication is speech. Speech is an inherent right all humans share and can not be infringed by any government.
You give them the power to regulate, they'll make it their power to control in their favor. Initially that favor is only financial -- take care of their nepotism and cronies. Eventually they turn to "help the needy" when the regulations for the needy really only help the monopolies they've created. In the end, the control is about power -- absolute power over the minions.
Don't don the tinfoil hat, it isn't necessary. Just see that every empire has its day, and the ones most responsible are those who elected, not those who were elected.
I vote only for myself -- each and every line of each and every ballot. In my mind, I win. I picked the candidate best suited to represent my family and I.
The problem with all these intelligence programs is the "mission creep" of where they start with what seems like a good cause then morph into being used against constitutionally protected forms of expression such as peaceful dissent and opposing viewpoints. When a program is sold as anti-terrorism in nature as its sole purpose and is given broad lattitude to push the edges of the constitution and elinimate checks-and-balances protections it is a sobering and serious grant of power we are giving one branch of the government. But when it quickly becomes another general-use law enforcement tool used in mundane investigations it is very troublesome and scary.
The "I have nothing to hide" argument rings hollow when intense surveilance is used as a political weapon.
Until such time as the administration and intelligence agencies can exercise some self-restraint and accountability I will view all these warrantless intrusions with intense suspicion.
We are a country of laws based on a strong and unique constitution. I would like it to remain that way.
I love living in the USA controlled by monied interests and the Republican party. They foster such an honest, compassionate, and responsible atmosphere for civil discourse.
Torture, lying, spying on citizens, the list of crimes Bush is responsible for goes on and on. Would someone give this guy a blowjob already so we can impeach him?
There have been thousands of shark attacks over the years. I propose that we install cameras and other surveillance equipment in your bathroom, to prevent more unnecessary carnage. If you actually mind having your privacy invaded, it's probably because you hate America and sympathize with the sharks. What are you hiding?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
As long as you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.
And as long as you don't walk funny or wear all one color. And don't celebrate "weird" holidays. And you probably shouldn't visit those weird porn sites or read some of those really liberal sites. And you should eat meat, at least every now and then. Don't be militant about the vegetarian thing, you know? And you really should have a regular job. If you have a lot of free time to go to protests and stuff like that, you might get in the wrong crowd. And probably French is a better choice to learn at that community college than Arabic. Yeah, I know you like the falafel, but don't buy so much of it okay? At least pay cash (but small amounts so you don't raise suspicion) And when you finish thumbing through those books (you know the ones I'm talking about) at the bookstore or library, put them back on the shelf, okay? Actually, why are you going to the library? You've got money to buy books. Only certain types of people go to the library. And, it's okay to criticize the president, with your friends, but no need to put that stuff on your blog, you know? How about an American flag on there? Whatever you think about Iraq, just talk about how you support the troops. Sure you can support the troops but not the war, but you gotta watch how you say it. And I don't mean on your cell phone. Just don't talk about politics on the cell. Yeah I know about your depression, just try to go outside as much as you can, just fake it, whatever, it's safer when they see you come and go more often. No, the tattoo should be of the flag, or a heart, or something. Makes it easier when you're searched. Remember to say "Merry Christmas". I know, I know, but it's just a couple words. Have you considered tossing a bible into your pack in case you're searched? You should take off those pins.. they give the wrong impression. And those electronics books, you're not in school, people might think you're making something you shouldn't. If somebody asks, tell them your TV is being repaired. I think you'd look better without the beard. It's just a suggestion.
Just basically stay inside the bell curve, and you'll be fine!
George swore to uphold and protect the constitution of the USA. If he blatantly disregards law, he is in violation of his oath to be President. As such he should be impeached. Without an impeachment, the congress and supreme courts are giving up their power to the President, which would result in a dictatorship. I have already written my representatives the request to have an investigation into this issue, and hope others will follow my behavior.
> Is there anybody out there who doubts that Bush is not good for our country?
There's some as to whether he's even in the loop.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The president also swore an oath to uphold the laws of this country, including FISA, which requires him to get a secret warrant to tap the phones of citizens.
> Good thing to know that if downtown New York got bombed, and thousands of people died, nobody would want to know if someone was plotting another attack like that.
Good to know that you don't think freedom is worth dying for.
Too bad about all those who died for nothing over the centuries.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"....Benjamin Franklin
]{
However, as regards the main topic, I've always worked from the premise that powers are abused. Therefore, I've always assumed that the power to tap email is probably being widely abused, and not just by the NSA. It's not the case that I'm doing anything of legitimate interest to legal authorities, but simply that I have an attitude of questioning authority, and they don't appreciate that.
However, if I had any actual reason to be paranoid, then the situation would be very different, and I would obviously be much more discreet about what I put into my email. That's where you encounter the bogosity aspect of Dubya's claims of the necessity of this kind of illegal surveillance. Wannabe terrorists are not going to jeopardize their complicated plans by describing them in clear email. They aren't even going to expose their real communication channels. Insofar as they are going to use technical mechanisms at all, they are going to go out of their way to obfuscate both the message, the source, and the destination--all of which are trivially easy for anyone who is actually motivated to do so.
No, there's only one aspect of this that has surprised me so far. That was when Dubya admitted he had done it. He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means. He apparently thinks it is only related to a certain number of votes in Congress, but that's just the transient political status. What Dubya has confessed to doing is clearly a violation of the laws that he swore to defend.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is probably one of the most important stories of the year... not to be too dramatic, but possibly the most important story in the last ten. The US government is conducting warrentless wiretaps on its citizens, collecting information in a vest unsupervised net.
This news came to the fore the day before Christmas. And folks, it's on Slashdot Christmas Eve. How many people are paying attention to this? The New York Times is already in hot water for holding the initial story for a year. Now more and more facts are coming out, during a time when few people watch the news, Congress is out of session, and the president and his staff can be on vacation. It's on Slashdot, and I'm checking Slashdot as I'm watching Red Sleigh Down (South Park) on Comedy Central... how many Slashdot readers are looking at the site? No offesnse to the rest of the worl...
Jesus, this story may damn well disappear into the *void that's American political memory.
People, I pray that this story - the Orwellian degradation of our liberties, the expansion of the police state, the emergence of fascism as corporations and security institutions work together - does not fade away. Write your congressional representatives, write the paper, bug your friends and family, but don't ignore this issue.
We've got to make
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
The problem with the "After 9/11, everything is different" justification is that it admits no limits. Tell me, after 9/11, is there any civil liberty that you are not willing to sacrifice?
Holding thousands of people indefinitely, without charge and without any judicial review? After 9/11, everything is different.
Torturing hundreds of suspects, and outsourcing the torture of hundreds more? After 9/11, everything is different.
Continuous monitoring and data-mining of essentially all communications? After 9/11, everything is different.
Individually tracking the movement, communication, and transactions of every person in the U.S. After 9/11, everything is different.
Keeping Americans in the dark about the details and sometimes even the existence of these actions being performed in their names? After 9/11, everything is different.
And it has been around and known about for some time. Talk about late breaking news.
Here are a couple of links about it. Hell, one of them is from Wikipedia...
All the America-bashers and Bush-bashers come out of the closet yet again to rant about how "America is not free" and similar slogans, without addressing the actual topic.
Does no one on the Slashdot forum wish to discuss the national security issues which are behind the wiretapping, not to mention that other "scandal" regarding testing for radioactivity around Moslem sites?
I do not favor giving up any of my rights unless there is a clear benefit and a timetable for restoring those rights. That's why I support the temporary extension of the Patriot Act rather than the permanent extension advocated by the Bush administration.
Suppose someone out there is trying to smuggle a Soviet-era warhead into a major U.S. city. This scenario is probably realistic, given that the Russians have not accounted for all of their warheads and other nuclear material, not to mention the fanaticism and determination of the Muslim extremists. This is not a theoretical threat but a real one; if they *could* kill millions of people here, they *would*.
Given this scenario, is it really so terrible and wrong and evil for the NSA to be using wiretapping and internet-tapping to try to gather intelligence? That seems rather mild by comparison to the catastrophe described above. Would you prefer to wait politely until some container ship floats into New York Harbor and takes away three million lives? Not me; I would rather be prepared and knowledgeable (and alive).
That said, the major issue is that the U.S. intelligence community is not the world's best, and probably doesn't get the support it needs to do a first class job. Probably it can't, in such an open society. Israel's intelligence is probably the world's best and I have no idea how they do it, but if we get another warning about a 9/11-like attack from them I sure as hell hope we listen this time.
The Bush Administration has made its share of blunders and I would like to see them cooperating a little more with Congress and friendly governments; Bush and his team have a go-it-alone attitude which was satisfying in the dark days after 9/11/2001 but which just doesn't work in the long term.
Yes, anonymous coward, the U.S. is not a perfect country, but I doubt yours is either, wherever that may be. We have made mistakes, and no doubt we'll make plenty more. But we've also done great things and we're still groping and stumbling our way toward a better society and a more peaceful world.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Do not conflate "US Person" with "US Citizen". Do not become completely confused as to what was intercepted. NO calls that were within the US between US Persons were intercepted without a warrant. Get that fact straight first - what is referred to in the articles online is the world-wide intercept program of the NSA, and that it included some calls that had a terminus in the US as well as in a target of interest area overseas. They are not monitoring your call to the local mosque, nor your aunt Mabel in Canada (unless she happens to work for Al Qaeda).
The relevant parts of the FISA:
Lots of legal analysis of htis going on, but this is one of the more cogent pieces I have seen. Read it and you will realize that although it sounds bad in terms of civil rights, its probably legal, and certainly proper if you take the view that preventing antoehr 9/11 is paramount importance.
If the NSA surveillance program tracks all international communications (or all international communications to al Qaeda hotspots such as Afghanistan), it does not target specific individuals as required by 1801(f)(1). If the communications are intercepted outside the U.S., the NSA program falls outside the definitions in 1801(f)(2) and 1801(f)(4). If the program excludes intentional capture of purely domestic communications, it falls outside the ambit of 1801(f)(3).
Bottom line: a massive surveillance system that intercepts millions or billions of international calls and e-mails may not constitute electronic survellance as defined by FISA, provided that the interception occurs outside the United States and neither specific individuals nor purely domestic calls are targeted.
Bush's supporters and opponents can argue about whether that's good or bad, but the law is what it is. This progrram is likely a direct outgrowth of the events of 9/11 that were arranged between overseas enemies of the US and their domestic agents (who were illegally in the US a the time of the attacks). Intercepting those communications is certainly legal, and reasonable (in terms of the 4th amendment prohibitions of warantless searches).
Remember - get the facts first, not the rumors and
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I'm an American. A young one at that (22). I grew up under Regan, Bush, and Clinton. During those 3 administrations I had pride in my country. Yeah, there were scandals and scuffs and this and that, but over all I still had pride in my country. Then came 9/11...
It makes me so made that so many people died in 9/11 for nothing. I think if most of them saw the chain of events that happened after that it would make them sick. This administration has used their deaths to propel their agenda forward. If you oppose them, you are un-american (or so they'd have you believe). It's possibly the sickest thing I've ever seen. This whole administration is on the same level as Hitler. The fact they can send countless troops not only to their deaths, but many injured and may never walk or see or live a normal life again. It's just sick.
They have undone 100 years of privacy laws in just a few short years in the name of "terrorism". Terrorism is like the fucking boogie man in this country. Completely intangable, yet we are being forced by Bush's regime to be constantly scared of it. Before 9/11 terrorism in this country was neglable. Since then, we've had no major attacks in this country. Yet I've had all my rights stripped because of this "threat" that has affect so few people personally. More people will die by morning of heart disease than 9/11 and the Iraq war combined (American deaths). Our priorties are all fucked up.
The 24 hour news channels don't help. They scare everyone into thinking there's something to be afraid of. THERE ISN'T. Be afriad of dying because you don't take care of your body. Be afriad of dying in your SUV because of a rollover. Be afraid of dying from getting AIDS from unprotected sex. Don't be afriad of dying from terrorism.
We are all dying a slow death anyway. Is living in this made up state of fear constantly really living? I sure as hell don't think it is. Our forefathers gave their lives for what? For an administration to come along and undo hundreds of years of work in an instant?
Fuck you bush adminstration for scaring people. Fuck you 24 hour news channels for spreading the bullshit scare tactics. Fuck you Americans who lie back on your sofa being manipulated by these assholes.
Bush is the real terrorist, and he's already won.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
The NSA does wholesale surveillance while the FBI does retail, so to speak. Is a wholesale surveillance organization going to be applied to like 500 people or whatever the original number was? C'mon, they could have used the FBI for that. Eschelon only really has value when you let it hoover as much data as it wants ...
remember the wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi: If enough peasants die horribly, someone will probably notice
We need better leaders. I'm not just referring to our dipshit-in-chief.
If more people would just stand up and fight for ideas like freedom, tolerance, compassion, and plain old common sense, humanity would be better off.
Costa Rica by the year 2010, baby.
Right on. Canada is looking better every day. Actually anywhere not currently targeted by USA nukes. Seriously.
Happy Solstice, everybody...
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Remember when the idea of being able to go to a secret court, rather than an open court, to get a warrant was shocking?
Now, we uphold the secret court as a just alternative to what the President is actually doing.
plutonium implosion trigger
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
So...the first attempt by the NYT to create panic about supposed "spying" against American citizens turned out to be a total joke (since it was only international calls between known terrorists and people/numbers inside the U.S.) so they're trying again in an attempt to boost book sales. It's not THAT hard to track the author's names, editor's names, etc. and see that.
Do a little research and you'll find there has always been government monitoring of communication. Think about it a little and you'll realize that an essential part of providing security. There's this little blurb in the founding documents of the U.S. which talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Life is first in the list, before liberty. You can't have liberty if you don't have life and the only way to have life is to protect against those who wish to take it from others.
What's next? They will discover that cell "phones" are actually radios so monitoring isn't that difficult nor subject to the laws which apply to land line telephones? They'll discover it's possible to read the contents of a sealed envelope without reading it? They'll discover most email is non-encrypted?
No, wait, I've got it. They'll "discover" frequent buyer discount cards are actually used to gather customer demographics. Yeah, and Diebold is part of the plot to "spy" on every person in the world.
Oh, yeah, that's a start. Let's also claim the large banks of the world are involved because they monitor credit card use under the guise of looking for fraudulent behavior. (Let's ignore how the Patriot Act allows real-time tracking and reporting of credit card fruad as it happens which has lead to many arrests of the thieves while they're on their shopping sprees.) Yeah, that's good, too.
OK, we've got the leftwing cooks, let's do something to bring in the rightwing cooks. Uh...we'll claim all this data is stored in a giant computer in Switzerland (built by IBM for the Nazis) called The Beast. We can't pull off the number trick which gave the numeric value of 666 to the names Reagan and Hitler this time so we'll claim GWB = 666. Yeah, that's good. Oh, and he drinks raw goat's blood during the full moon while burning black candles. All that churchy stuff is just a cover-up.
Yeah, that about covers it.
--
Honestly, this is just a bunch of stupid FUD. Of course, the American intel monitors communication. So does every other country and intel/security force. This is the real world, not cartoons. The "bad guys" don't stand out and identify themselves.
"Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice"
- Proverbs 16:8
I have been told that the Hebrew word that is usually translated as "righteousness" has another, overlooked sense: "objectivity". It is one thing to say, for example, that giving alms to the poor is righteous. However what makes charity righteous is that objectively the needs of others sometimes exceeds their resources, while at the same time our resources may exceed our needs. The "unrighteous" handles the misfortunes of the needy through wishful thinking: they must be unlucky because they are bad. Indeed, it would be a wonderful world where the good are rich and the wicked are poor. However, a righteous person lives in the world as it is not as he wishes it to be.
When I was young, we were taught that as part of our baptismal vows we had to "reject the glamour of evil." This is a curious choice of words. "Glamour" is an archaic English word which means a kind of magical illusion. It's saying the same thing: to live righteously, we must reject illusion that the world is place where good served by our indulging our infantile and selfish impulses.
We most commonly act unrighteously out of unjustified fear. Fear of death and misfortune. What makes the fear unjustified is that objectively speaking these things inevitably must come to us. It is not our choice. But objectively it is our choice to live in freedom. Therefore what we should fear most is the loss of liberty.
It's not that what the Bush adminstration is doing is wrong. Indeed the kind of analysis described in this article is very important in detecting an imminent terrorist attack. No, the problem is that they wish to do it outside any form of accountability. No man, and for that matter no government, can be righteous if he is not accountable to somebody who will look at his deeds with an independent and critical eye. It's not possible. That's why when we say somebody is "self-righteous", we of course understand that this means they are not righteous at all. "Self-righteous" means they're only righteous from their own self-serving point of view, a point of view that could not survive objective scrutiny.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps its time to remember this quote, which speaks a timeless truth:
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done, and I am Caesar."
-Julius Caesar
https isn't all that, but I support it on my own site, https://freeinternetpress.com/ , and I put a little reminder image on the top left. It's pretty trivial to do, and if you believe https makes you that much more secure, go for it.
https is decryptable. The question would be, are they interested in doing it? Most people are sending the majority of their stuff in the clear. Most people assume that because they may have a secure connection to their mail server, that it's encrypted going to another server. That's far from the truth. SMTP is unecrypted, as are most implementations of POP and IMAP. Your IM messages are also unencrypted, or at least can be intercepted at the server. I picked my VoIP carrier, because their data is encrypted, but it's only that way until it has to go over traditional transports. If I call another VoIP customer on my provider, it's (as advertised) encrypted. If I call a POTS line, there goes my security.
Is it worth their while to decrypt encrypted stuff? Probably not. But, if they believe a target is worth while, they'll crack your communication like it's nothing. I'm sure plenty of people will respond with the "it would take a..." messages. It would use a (whatever), if YOU, the casual user were to do it. If they had a dedicated cluster set up for figuring out keys, then it's trivial. They can crack your encryption faster than a kid with a copy of airsnort can crack your WEP encryption.
Of course, the more encryption you use, the more suspicious you look. What are you trying to hide? Will it be faster to pick you up, seize all of your electronics, and interrogate you for the next two years?
What do you have to hide anyways? Chances are, nothing that interesting.
I've given up on the thought that anything I say or do is that interesting to them. If it was, I would have the black van still parked in front of my house, or I'd be lounging around in Southeastern Cuba. I don't do anything all that subversive. I report the news, which is already publically available.
My biggest concerns are that some wannabe agent, like a TSA agent, or local rookie cop, will harass me over things I carry. I have a laptop. I have miles of cables and adapters. I have books on security. Oddly enough, I use them for perfectly legal work. I get harassed occasionally. For quite a while, I'd be selected for secondary searches at airports, because the wire for my WiFi antenna was stuck to the top of my laptop. I'd tell them what it was. They'd half-ass search my bag, and ask questions about why I was traveling. 15 minutes later, I'd go and get on the plane. They'd miss obvious things, like my bag smelled of gunpowder, or there was a lighter in the bottom of my bag.
BTW, the gunpowder smell wasn't anything illegal. I was at the shooting range one day, and at the airport later. No gun, no ammo, but plenty of residual stink that their sniffer didn't pick up. I don't feel any safer because of the searches. I just feel delayed and violated. Why should I have to explain every device I carry with me, when they're all commercially available (and legal) products?
It still sucks that I can't carry a screwdriver. I *HAVE* to check a bag everywhere I go, because I can't carry a #2 phillips with me. It makes it very hard for me to work, if I don't have at least that.
For some reason, last time I flew, several pairs of jeans were seized. They forgot the extensive electronics and hand tools, and stole my jeans. {sigh} I'm happy they didn't take any of the electronics or tools. Those are more expensive to replace.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Since 911, there hasn't been another.
There have probably been nefarious terrorist plots throughout history. The "plot to cause large-scale death and terror" is a staple theme of Saturday-morning cartoons and Hollywood action movies. 9/11 didn't start it all. Surely there were always those who were more serious about it.
Based on that, it could be more reasonable to point out that since World War II, large-scale foreign attacks on US soil were always foiled...until the GW Bush administration.
I know that it is typical for the Slashdot libertarian crowd to have an aversion, almost knee-jerk reaction, to any privacy related issue, we Slashdot liberals feel the same. Bush has once again crossed the line, but as a neo-pinko liberal I am not surprised, I am not even particularly annoyed. My disgust with the United States and its inability to provide an open inclusive society runs far deeper than this single incident. I am annoyed with Missle Defense, drilling in ANWR, Intelligent Design, pro-life, pro-death penalty, secret prisons, prisoner abuse, tying iraq to terror, no child left behind, get tough on immigration, get tough on crime, christian coalition, anti-welfare, anti-healthcare, anti-gun control, pro-business, anti-environment, crap. Really the entire political dialogue of the so-called United States has been broken for years, and Bush certainly doesn't see anything less than absolute god-granted carte blanche on the war on terror. Remember this guy doesn't answer to the voter, he answers to god. So my question is when can we vote on the new constitution, because I feel that I am the one living in Iraq, but I don't have the excuse of invasion?
Software depends on how you're intending to do the encryption. If you're planning on hooking up to a regular phone system as well as doing VoIP, then you're certainly looking at using Asterisk for your exchange system.
At the kernel level, for pure VoIP, you probably want to use either Linux with either the StrongSWAN or OpenSWAN patches applied, OpenBSD or MirBSD. (I believe FreeBSD and NetBSD have IPSec, but I'm not sure.) This allows you to encrypt from your machine to the destination, using a grade of encryption that will be proof against standard wiretaps. Rijndael (AES) is (as far as anyone knows) uncrackable on existant technology and if you combine it with SHA-2, you've a system that would be impervious to any wiretap you're likely to encounter.
For working with Asterisk, you want to use a stream cipher, not a block cipher. Asterisk with Encryption WIKI has more information on how to set it all up. You basically link up a VPN and encrypt the VPN. Because some line loss is inevitable, you want an algorithm that is resistant to loss and is reasonably fast. There are phones that have hardware encryption in them, which provide higher levels of security and they are also listed.
Of the stream ciphers out there, FEAL/SEAL and Chameleon seem to be the most reputable.
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)
The real privacy concerns to me are whether the NSA is sharing this information to be used by others for purposes other than those used to justify the monitoring. For instance, if they hear that I have a real big order of yeast and barley malt enroute from one company, and a lot of lab equipment on order from another company, will they alert the ATF that I have just ordered the necessary ingredients and supplies to start distillng alcohol? Although illegal where I reside, a still is not a security risk, and passing on that type of information seems to me to be the greater privacy risk, and goes against the whole reason for the monitoring in the first place. Of course, others may disagree, and no, I don't have a still.
Humm, we didn't have any terrorists attack in Brazil since 9/11 either, but that doesn't mean it is because of the NSA actions.
Do you know of any attack attempt that was stopped by NSA, Homeland Security or any of the other agencies ? Isn't it just as possible that the terrorists are not trying to attack the USA, maybe because the current state of terror is just what they wanted ?
I mean, considering how important popular support is for a government, it is to be expected the moment they actually stopped an attack, they would brag about it, so I don't buy the "oh, they did stop, but it is a big secret" talk.
morcego
Nothing wrong was done.
Bullshit.
Pick up a "Dummies Guide to American Government" so that you can understand that the President just doesn't launch secret programs without anyone else knowing about it.
Point out the page on which "Dummies Guide to American Government" says that the President can order warrantless spying on Americans.
Stop skimming the headlines of articles and don't get stuck in that "read once, repeat many" syndrome. Do the research. It's not like this is the first time a program like this was launched.
Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.
When did slashdot become so Anti-American?
When did defending the Bill of Rights become anti-American?
How many of our operative's identities were uncovered and made public by the news media?
I don't know, how many? And what does that have to do with the fact that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans?
No one seems to be shouting TREASON and yet when SUPPORT is there for the president to use any means possible to find terrorists some people want to help the terrorists instead.
Explain to me how not getting a warrant helps the terrorists. While doing so, keep in mind that the law allows you t retroactively get a warrant up to 72 hours after spying is initiated.
Strange. I guess you just have to lose someone in a building due to a terrorist attack to appreciate what this administration is doing for you.
To appreciate direct and unabashed violation of the Fourth Amendment? I'm afraid it will take a lot more than that for me to appreciate it.
Stop saying that America is not Free and is such a "Horrible" place to live in.
Exactly where did I say what you quote me as saying there?
Are you nuts? Have you been outside of the US lately and I don't mean some layover between flights? It's crazy out there. Take a walk in your local park and be grateful that you don't have to dodge bullets or worry about your 5 year old daughter being raped.
Explain to me exactly what my five year old daughter being raped has to do with the President ordering warrantless spying on Americans.
Most importantly, if you decide to use your wonderful freedom of free speech, use it wisely. Don't spew forth nonsense. Sheep are stupid.
They sure are.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
...or...
Either:
a. You support Bush in whatever he wants to do
b. You are supporting the terrorists!
At Bush's inauguration, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution says NOTHING about suspending ANY rights or portions of the Constitution just because the President says to.
...welcome our new NSA overlords.
No, screw that... where's my gun! Time to overthrow the gov... hey, who are you? Get out of my house! Let go of me... I haven't even posted this yet...
It seems that one of the key missing components in understanding this issue is the technology factor.
Over the last 20 years, the NSA has basically seen their world turned upside down. 20 years ago, it was fairly easy for them to tap a phone line, track who was doing what, etc. There was not nearly the level and depth of technology that there is today. Old technology systems (telephone, etc) were built in a hierarchical fashion and owned by a single corporation (often government). It was pretty easy to get the access you needed exactly where you wanted it in order to do your job (which would be providing the right intelligence at the right time).
The technological revolution of the past two decades has been a
nightmare for the NSA (and other intelligence agencies as well). They just cant keep up. Like any government bureaucracy (especially one that is over 25,000 people strong), turning the NSA ship takes a long time. Modern communications systems are completely distributed in nature (the Internet), and owned by thousands of different entities. Various technologies come and go faster than you can build tools to target them. A terrorist can buy one prepaid cellphone today, use it for a week and then buy a completely different one the next week. Sending emails and other Internet communications is even harder to track. Messages rarely take the same route twice, each hop along the way is owned by someone different, and many communications are encrypted so
well that the NSA could take months to decrypt a single message.
Furthermore, since 9/11, a large part of NSA's tasking has changed from targeting foreign nation-states with well defined assets, structures, etc to targeting shadowy terrorists with few connections, little hierarchy, fluid infrastructures, etc. You *cannot begin* to imagine what an enormous challenge this poses in a world of modern technology and communication systems.
So, what do you do when there is way too much information to process, way to many ways for that information to get from its origin to destination without you seeing it, etc? Well, the NSA realizes that they cannot listen to it all (nor do they want to). What they can do is try and get a small random sampling from thousands of different sources and somehow find ones that might be interesting using sophisticated voice processing software, keyword search, etc. By looking for keywords, certain accents, specific voices, etc they can hopefully try to narrow down the needle in the haystack. It is still an insane job, but by combining intelligent collection targeting with the sifting software they hopefully will snag a few terrorists which they can then monitor more closely in order to build out the social networks of terrorists.
This is why Bush said that FISA was for long-term monitoring. You
cannot get FISA warrants for each and every one of these small samples you take when trying to dig a needle out of the haystack. It would just be absurd, and would waste much more time than it was worth. So, you do this random sampling without getting court pre-approval, and then when you find something interesting, you get a FISA warrant to do more in-depth and long-term monitoring.
Bush understands this because he talks to the intelligence agencies
every day. He knows that the terrorist threat is very real, and he will be damned before he lets another attack happen on US soil. Critics of the NSA eavesdropping are being overly simplistic in their understanding of how intelligence is gathered in the modern world. Their suggestions are basically equivalent to throwing in the towel on the war against terror because they want to cripple the ability to gather intelligence, and you cannot fight an enemy without intelligence.
Unfortunately, opening all of this up to the public makes the enemy that much more aware, and thus the task that much harder. It does indeed compromise sources and methods and I hope that whoever leaked the project gets grilled for it.
So does the anti-tiger rock in my pocket. I haven't been attacked by tigers since I started carrying it!
If our security forces aren't accountable to us, how do we know whether they're doing what we want them to do?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
In other words, they didn't just tap the phones of a few people.
They invaded the privacy of EVERY person in the country.
Rather than provide leadership and encourage us to cooperate with each other as a society, they've chosen the route of paranoia, secrecy, and tyranny.
I think I'm going to suggest a Slashdot article that I've got a keyboard that scares off terrorists!
After all, I'm typing on it right now, and there aren't any in this room. In fact, I've had this one since early 2002-and there have been absolutely no more terrorist attacks.
"What they're doing is working" on the premise that "No more attacks have occurred" is correlation equalling causation, a logical fallacy. I might've taken it to a slightly more ridiculous extreme, but neither assertion holds up logically.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
well... are you really trying to hide something from the government? i mean, i have a healthy paranoia but it's not of the federal government, it of corperations and scam artists. seriously, what do you have to hide?
Don't tell me someone is spewing that garbage again. Oh, someone is. Don't we learn anything? Ever?
What do I have to hide? The details of my private life. Period. Whether or not I'm doing anything illegal, I don't want a camera in my living room, nor my bedroom, nor my bathroom. If the police can develop probable cause to believe I've committed a crime, and need to search one of those rooms, or all of them, they can go before a judge, get a warrant, and search away. But until then, they can stay out.
Same applies to your communications. Would you be entirely comfortable with your speech over the phone if you knew someone was always listening? I don't want someone tapping into my phones. Once again, if they'd like to go get a warrant, tap away-and until then, stay out.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has been used by totalitarian regimes to justify their actions this world over. And yet, it keeps on getting said, by people just like you.
How about we turn that around? The US government is supposed to work in a means that is as transparent as possible to the American people, as it should be. If they've got nothing to hide, they can quit taking so damn many of their actions in secret. They can tell us why hundreds of people are detained without a trial at one of our military bases. They can tell us why they're intercepting communications without telling us-and surely, they can tell us what good that's done so far.
After all, if they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear from us having a look.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
So
First they came for the
You know the rest.
More people die on the highways than have ever been killed by terrorists in ANY year in the US.
No. You're confusing the part for the whole.
Because the terrorists were Muslims
Does not make Muslims terrorists.
Many people have cats as pets
But not everyone who has a pet has a cat.
You are taking your previous logical fallacy and extending it to contradict one of our basic rights in our Constitution.
Actually, it is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. The only difference is that YOU have had certain items forcibly displayed to YOU.
Israel has had to deal with suicide bombers for years longer.
Yes. I know Muslims who have been threatened by overzealous "patriots" here.
That's great. You might want to re-read the bit I wrote about how it is YOU who hasn't seen things that have existed for others for years.
That's great. Meaningless, but great.
When members of Congress cannot even discuss the meetings the President calls with their lawyers
I think you're a little bit confused about "freedom".
There's a lot of legalistic horseshit flowing back and forth over this entire brouhaha, but it's a fairly simple thing to analyze. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, et al, would have supported a strong personal right to privacy if they were alive today to discuss it for the same reason that they supported the second amendment. The second amendment was written in so that the people would be able to defend themselves from their own government. Private communication would be protected *for the same reason*, and no other.
Thinking outside my Head
In short, there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about him. There are no effective safeguards and no meaningful counterbalances for this kind of situation. The best any moderate can hope for is that both the 2006 and 2008 elections are decided by great enough margins towards those who want effective safeguards, that it'll be as easy to stabilize and secure the system then as it has been for the current administration to corrupt it.
My personal preference would be for a constitutional amendment that added a wholly new branch of Government - outside the Executive, Legislative and Judicial - that has all the necessary powers, clearances, means and protections to investigate corruption at absolutely any level in every branch of Government. That is it. That is all it would do. Just investigate. Because it was independent of all other branches, it would not have political appointments made to it, could not be ordered to stop, or indeed even ordered to start. The power of such a body is not in what it could do, but in what it could know.
Government is often corruptible, not because it is powerful - most humans are powerful over something in their lives, but aren't necessarily abusive - but because few in Government have any reason to believe anyone'll know about it. The moment you can guarantee that (a) someone WILL know about it - no matter how classified the information, and (b) they're utterly protected against reprisals if they talk, then those in power will be much less likely to step over the line. (And, if they do genuinely feel as though they have to, they're going to put every ounce of effort into establishing WHY no alternatives are viable, because they WILL be asked questions later.)
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)
But
Why was a secret court setup to approve those warrants specifically for the government?
One program I had to de-bloat was about 15 million lines long, most of it very badly maintained Motif GUI code. I added a 1,000 line widget set to the code, and was then able to remove 14 million lines of unnecessary redundancy.
Adding the right stuff, therefore, CAN lead to removal of the wrong stuff. Adding a pin to a balloon will remove bloat.
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)
Incorrect. The standard by which "shouting across the street" is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy clearly does not apply when considering the prohibition of using a scanner to intercept cellular communications. As written in Bartnicki v. Vopper the US Supreme Court recognizes that US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119 is valid:
(yadda yadda yadda... you can read the rest for yourself).
The interception of a cellular communication is, in fact, subject to a warrant specifically because it is designed and intended to be used as person-to-person communications unless specifically used otherwise - dialing into a group party line, for example.
I have no objections: in my book parking across the street with a geiger counter does not reasonably constitute a search; furthermore it is a reasonable and expected function of the government to monitor air quality. This is entirely different than the use of thermal imaging which was used to detect grow-lights within residential homes: a practice which was prudently struck down by the Supreme Court (a rare correct decision).
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Further the right of the people extends to the citizens of the united states, not citizens of other nations or foreign agents operating on U.S. soil.
You say that non-citizens such as people with immigrant status, foreign students or workers or tourists do not have these rights? Please give us the benefit of your Judicial wisdom. I don't think that the US or most Western countries have a separate body of law for legally resident non-citizens.
This sort of large scale analysis of interpersonal communications is exactly what the European Parliament has just passed into law. The Bush Administration may actually be doing it, but at least they're keeping it secret and pretending they aren't. At least they know it's shameful and immoral, and counter to the ideals of a free society.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
How did Echelon help deter the 9/11 attack? Oh, it didn't. More importantly, WHY? Doesn't anyone find it rather odd that despite already having the most all-encompassing surveillance technology available and in operation, 9/11 occurred anyway? What's different about the no-warrant wiretaps and TIA (or whatever they're choosing to call it today?) Could it be that the government is merely looking for a way to force public acceptance of a hideous (and, based on the lack of results from Echelon) probably unecessary surveillance state?
"A few more points:
* There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties."
That doesn't make it legal. But most important-WE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A WAR. There has been no declaration of war by Congress. Declare an official war and I might be a tad more accepting. Not a vague excuse to expand excutive powers.
"Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country."
Oh, I believe that he believes he is doing this to defend the country. He is wrong. The greatest threat to this country comes from the executive branch not the terrorists.
"I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets."
So, breaking the law is okay just as long as it doesn't benefit you? And unless you have a security clearance AND are part of the group involved in the intelligence gathering you would have no real evidence.
I have no significant problem with this being used against foreign powers or citizens. Unease, yes. But there is no excuse for its use against US citizens. If you can't get a rubber stamp from a FISA court, retroactively, the intelligence has no value for fighting terrorism. As a matter of fact, we don't lack intelligence-we had enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The problem is using the intelligence and the right kind of intelligence (on the ground in foreign countries). If anything it can be argued that this program makes us less safe.
im just saying that i dont think the government would be interested in what you have to say to your friends and family.
Then they shouldn't be monitoring it. There, isn't that simple?
as for the totalitarians, the difference there is that if you say something about the government they come and take you away to God knows where and do God knows what to you.
Eventually, yes. But generally at the beginning, they find a way to get the monitoring apparatus into place, and convince you that it's for your own good, and that you have nothing to fear from it.
personally, i dont care if they know that i talk about stuff with my brother even when i bash the cops for being bastards for thier rediculous traffic ticketing tactics.
Don't care about your privacy? Let's see if you do or not. Thus far, no one's answered this challenge, let's see if you'll be the first.
In your next post, please include: Your real name, your home and work/school physical address, your home, work/school, and cell phone numbers, all email addresses you use (with no obfuscation), all instant messenger or other communications you use, a link to a recent photograph of yourself, and the license numbers of all vehicles you own.
If you just found the thought of posting all that information to strangers profoundly uncomfortable-then you value your privacy, even though you ridicule others who do. If not, come on then, prove it.
too be fair, they have caught a bunch of terrorists and not just alleged ones, ones tried in public courts.
Really? They've been remarkably silent about it. Let's see a link to a case where a suspect tried in a real court was caught using the PATRIOT Act?
as for secrecy around detentions, do you think they want to draw attention to their arrests and (possibly) alert their terrorist buddies?
Don't know-and don't care. Secret detention without charge, counsel, or trial is illegal-regardless of what the detainer does or does not want to do.
it has done good so far, terrorists are on the run now. overall though, i think you are being a little arrogant to think they would want to monitor you.
"A little arrogant"? Then let me ask you, smart guy-I'm "arrogant" to believe they want to monitor massive volumes of communication, when you JUST SAW a press report that that's exactly what they're doing? I don't know if they're monitoring -me- specifically, and again, I don't really care. They shouldn't be monitoring any US citizen without a warrant. Ever. Period.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
However, if TPTB are controlling both the government and the terrorists, then what has happened so far is what I would expect - No further "attacks".
There is no reason for further attacks because the bush administration is doing a fine job at screwing up the U.S., by doing whatever they want, like ignoring the law for example.
No further attacks unless they need to scare and confuse the U.S. Congress into doing something really stupid, like making the Patriot act permanent.
So, if the U.S. Congress fails to make it permanent, then there will likely be some kind of terrorist "event", just to scare everyone and see if they can get congress to panic. Then bush will go around blaming the lack of the act as to why the "terrorist event" was able to occur, and to put the pressure on congress to reconsider. Most people would not see the fallacy in that argument.
Instead of extending the Patriot act, they should concentrate on the bush administration.
There are clues there that will lead to the "terrorists".
It is no surprise that Bin Laden has not been caught, they may need him again to scare congress.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Nobody is arguing that intel on communications is a bad thing. The real news is bypassing the courts to make sure that what and who they are spying on is legitimate. For instance, we don't want them spying on democrats in order to get the jump on them politically so that they can consistently stay in power by being to outmanuever them. Information is power, and how they get that information should be regulated.
Secondly, if the President can do all this. Why bother with a the patriot act at all? Seems like he has all the power he needs to do what he's doing. Thirdly, he told the American public that he's going to the court to do wire-tapping. Now we find out thats not whats going on at all. Somebody isn't playing straight with us. That's the news. The NSA/FBI/CIA spying is not news and that I agree with you.
sri
Really ??? You can't think of laws in the U.S. or other "Western Countries" (if i were asian or middle eastern I think would be horribly offended) that apply only to non citizens ? Really Really Really nothing comes to mind. No right, no restrictions on action, nothing comes to mind. Hmmm you did actually make an effort to look before you posted right ??
I have lived in the US as a foreign student. AFAIK I had the same rights as US citizens as long as I had legal residency status. Please give examples of US laws that apply only to non-citizens (legally resident). e.g. is there a law that says the police can search my house without a warrent if I am not a citizen? Did you make an effort to find such laws before you posted?
The only difference in rights is that non-citizens can have their residency status revoked and be deported. There are no separate US laws for non citizens.
I don't know about places like Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Interesting that the parent gets modded "troll". Slashdot modding at its best.
Note that "for years now" should be "for decades now".
Stick the term "NSA line eater" into google groups and see the output in 1986.
Echelon has been around a long time, people. It's been pretty widely known for a long time as well.
It's fine to debate whether the program is wise, or legal, or whether it should be legal. But implying this is something relatively new and shocking is reminiscent of Claude Raines in Casablanca.
The more interesting question is, what were the specifics of the bypassing of the FIS court, and what the reasons for that were. Was there a new interpretation for the existing exceptions, or did the increasing ability of technology turn an existing exception into something beyond the original intent of FISA? This isn't clear to me. Frankly, this is a case where details matter, and they are quite lacking.
As is common, those that know the full story aren't talking, and that that are talking, largely don't know the full story.
And what about Thomas White who, prior to his appointment to Bush's cabinet as Secretary of Army, was a senior chairman at Enron and also happened to sell 200,000 shares of Enron stock for $12 million just before the company's collapse? Or Robert Zoellick--Bush's Deputy Secretary of state--who was previously a paid consultant on the Enron advisory board? Or Karl Rove--Bush's chief political advisor, who had significant stock in Enron, and helped get republican strategist Ralph Reed a consulting contract with Enron during Bush's first presidential campaign? Or John Ashcroft--who wasn't allowed to participate in the criminal investigation of the Enron scandle because of a "possible conflict of interest," and had also received more than $57,000 from Enron? Or Lawrence Lindsey, the current chief economic advisor of the whitehouse, who happens to be a former director on Enron's board? Oh, and let's not forget about the $1.75 million that Enron and Kenneth Lay gave to the G.O.P. during the 2000 campaign.
So is Bush going after corporate accounting fraud by giving those responsible cabinet positions and letting them make national policies? There's definitely corruption within the democratic party as well, but if you think Republicans are any better, you must have been living under a rock for the last 50 years. And what mess did Bush clean up after Clinton? You mean like that $200 billion surplus at the end of the Clinton administration that Bush turned into a $8 trillion deficit while cutting back on education, employment services, health, housing, law enforcement, and other programs that might actually improve our society?
Yea, thanks for all the dead arabs and U.S. soldiers Dubya, and thanks for trampling on the Constitution. The war on terrorism is going great. We're sure to win this thing any day now...
Wow, now that is a serious new conspiracy theory: The terrs had inside help, from as high as the White House itself.
Hmmm, I am a little bit more of a realist than that - don't think so - infinitely improbable - but a nice conspiracy theory, worthy of the super market tabloids...
It's pretty clear that the NeoCons were hoping for some kind of incident that would give them public support for their "New American Century" plan. Warnings about potential threats were ignored or suppressed. They probably didn't anticipate anything of the magnitude of 9/11, but once it happened, they took the ball and ran.
You may think it's a minor one, but that doesn't make it so. Without the right to free speech we would have no (legal) way to organize, document government abuses, or hold politicians accountable for their actions. In short, free speech is what makes all of the other freedoms enforceable, and is therefore one of the most important of our civil liberties.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
from FISA
Subchapter 1 (Electronic Surveillance) has the relevant passages of the law.
Though perhaps you didn't want to give us the link to that, because if you had, someone would have gone and read the law and seen that you're full of shit.
Section 1801
(i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
from Section 1802
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Unless the communications take place completely under means controlled by a foriegn power (i.e., not involving US communications carriers), they are potentially subject to FISA judicial oversight requirements. If any party involved in said communication is a US person in the statute, a court order is required. This does not just apply to communications
Second, stop beating the shit out of that straw man. Nobody is saying that the government isn't or shouldn't be wiretapping. We have laws, however, that govern how it's done. Those weren't followed. That's against the law.
The rest of your post is just a bunch of crap to distract from what utter bullshit the premise is and how intellectually dishonest you are.
This isn't about partisan politics, the critics of this spying have a very firm basis in law and fact. For God's sake, the NSA's own site says that spying on Americans without a warrant in unconstitutional:
http://www.nsa.gov/coremsgs/corem00003.cfm
It doesn't get more clear cut than that.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
I read a bumper sticker the other day... "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died"
Sums it up nicely i think.
From here over the Atlantic, Nixon looks like a prime example of the US naivity over politicians. He was a crook. His first VP was a crook. Many of his staff were crooks. He did a deal to get a hand-picked VP on the understanding that a pardon would be forthcoming were it to be needed. He waged a secret and illegal war, he engaged in hideous illegality internally and he lied, lied, lied to you.
And the US people let him go into affluent, unpunished retirement. His funeral was well-attended by politicians, who presumably saws nothing wrong with his actions.
Why would Bush be frightened of Nixon's fate? The USA rewarded Nixon handsomely.
ian
Actually HE DIDNT LIE IN COURT. When asked if he had had sexual relations, he asked the judge to define sexual relations. The judges definition excluded nonpenetrative sex, so Clinton could quite merrily reply in court under oath that he didnt have sexual relations. Its a huge play on words, but thats what lawyers and courts revolve around and in this case it fell in the defendants favour.
> Not only was Clinton too busy having his dick sucked to take any notice of the largest frauds in American history
What I find funny is that right-wingers are still hauling out Clinton distract attention from the current administration's excesses.
Sure, Clinton, like every other president in living memory - with the possible exception of Carter - was a liar and a crook. Does that mean we should just go along with unjustified wars and the wholesale destruction of our civil liberties?
Do you think Johnson's exploitation of the Tonkin Gulf "incident" was OK on the grounds that Nixon was a liar? Or the Iran-Contra affair was OK because of something Kennedy did?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We have one writter-philosopher in our country that says that there is no difference between "soviet political elite" and "american political elite". I think that now it is at least worth of thinking about it, right?
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
My intention was to highlight the ideals we purportedly follow. The 14th amendment as quoted says "citizens" a much more specific term which limits the scope markedly from what the Declaration set out for us.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer