Slashdot Mirror
Cringely on Domestic Eavesdropping
krygny writes "In this week's The Pulpit, Robert X. Cringely presents some interesting factoids he uncovered in his research into the NSA's domestic surveillance. He makes no judgements but offers some interesting stuff you might not have already known." From the article: "Intercepting communications for purposes of maintaining national security is nothing new. From before Pearl Harbor through 1945, EVERY trans-Atlantic phone call, cable and indeed letter was intercepted in Bermuda by the Coordinator of Information (COI) in the White House and later by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Sir William Stephenson revealed this in his autobiography, A Man Called Intrepid. They literally tapped the undersea cables and shipped all post to Europe through Bermuda, where every single call was monitored, every cable printed out, and every letter opened. FDR and Churchill needed intelligence and they took the steps they needed to get it."
This is exactly why we have a little law called FISA. And FISA is why the domestic spying program is a problem, because under FISA the domestic spying program is illegal. FDR wasn't really subject to FISA because FISA was passed in 1978.
This still doesn't mean that it is right for communications within the US to be monitored. Just because one thing has been done a long time, does not make it right. Look at slavery for example.
Well, guess what, murder, genocide, and rape are nothing new either... that doesn't make them any less reprehensible.
McCarthy did the same thing with communism as Bush is doing with terrorism. I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* for breaking our fundamental American rights. Just because doing so is unoriginal has no bearing on the fact of it being completely unethical conduct and grounds for legal action against his administration.
Oh well. I suppose we had a good enough run with freedom and personal liberty (something like... 30 or 40 years out of the thousands of years humans have been around?). Time for another Dark Ages. Hooray.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
> From before Pearl Harbor
Soooo... how'd that work out?
This controversy gets a little old as people argue the various ethical merits of government wiretaps. The issue is not whether eavesdropping on communications is necessary, right, or wrong, but whether we want to live in a country where the executive charged with running it is not bound by the law. I'm sure the lawyers in the DOJ will put forth some very creative arguments, but I think it is clear to most people that this breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law. As this plays out, we will be well served to remember that congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. When the president and his staff decide they need not adhere to the laws congress has authored, it is time to consider the meaning of 'high Crimes or Misdemeanors."
To my knowledge, Clinton never gave a blanket order to the NSA that allowed the violation of every man, woman, and child's privacy in America. By all means, educate me.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
It's obvious that what the Bush administration did is against the law, so why are so many people are too apathetic to do anything about it?
That has been going on sense Truman. Kennedy did it, Clinton did it, so did Nixon and Reagan.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm sure if the domestic eavesdropping were a narrowly targeted program, the Bush administration would have gotten warrants from the secret courts and there would be no issue. However, the NSA is likely monitoring a huge range of communications and then mining the data for potential "hits" using voice analysis or some other automated technique. Warrants to monitor specific lines or people don't really make sense unless the "hits" pan out. The 1978 FISA law is out of date given present day monitoring capabilities. The proper thing to do would have been to try to get that law updated, but in doing so, they would have had to reveal their strategy. Mind you, I am not supporting what the administration is doing at all. But I bet that's the story Alberto Gonzales will be telling the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The country you grew up hearing about in school... dead if it ever existed.
The principles it was founded on... undermined.
The word from all forms of media, public and private... propoganda.
The truth... Too crazy to be believed.
The reality... It's always 1984.
How do you expect intelligence agencies to gather intelligence?
Within the bounds of the law...
The difference between us is I realize that both of us are rather fond of democracy; I (and other conservatives) just happen to realize Democracy takes some defending even if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped.
The difference between us is that I'm not a scared little monkey who willingly sacrifices EVERYTHING out of fear of some overrated boogeyman. Do you think our nation is more at risk now than it was during the American Revolution? Not fucking hardly. Osama bin Laden is nothing more than an Emmanuel Goldstein, and you, cowardly fascist that you are, WANT to absolve your country's principles out of fear.
Someone who claims that someone who protects Democracy is "The Enemy" is I've found someone who has reach the point where there is no reasoning with them. Yes, that's right - it's easier to get a southern baptist to accept gay people than it is to get a blowhard peace loving Democrat to accept that some times when foreign powers are actively trying to hurt U.S. interests that things need to get done.
Peace loving? You argue against strawmen, and think yourself insightful.
I support the war in Afghanistan. I support all efforts to keep those fucksticks in Iran from getting nukes. I supported the military action in Kosovo. I WOULD support military intervention in Sudan.
I do NOT support wholeheartedly throwing away my rights and giving imperial powers to a president in pursuit of those goals. And I am not alone. Your strawmen are pathetic, willfull lies. America's strength comes from it's democracy and its justice system, not its military. We are neither so threatened nor so weak as to necessitate a king who is above the law.
Equal justice FOR ALL, and death to those who oppose it.
...And yet, while he knew about it, he didn't stop it? Rat bastard of a president, he is.
Clinton did not violate the law whereas Bush clearly did, and admitted it on national television. The FISA law before 1995 did not prohibit the Attorney General from conducting warrantless seizures. Janet Reno (agent of Clinton) authorized such a warrantless seizure of Aldrich Aimes home before 1995 for passing secrets to Israel. This seizure was well within the law at the time. Congress subsequently in 1995 then passed a law that prohibited warrantless seizures.
NOTHING under FISA nor any other Congressional authorization or law permits the President to conduct warrantless searches. When Congress was debating the War Authorization Act, Bush tried to first ask and then tried to sneak in a provision allowing the President to bypass FISA, BUT CONGRESS REFUSED. Thus, Congress not only did not give Bush any implied right to bypass FISA, they explicitly rejected it.
So when Bush authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretaps of US citizens, he acted in direct violation of FISA and of the Congress as well as Congressional intent. Who is the judicial activist now, bitch?
Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 was caught by wiretapping.
Oh really now? That was the plan, to "outdo 9-11"? Says who?
Oh, right- the same full-of-shit Italian government that gave us the forged Niger-Uranium documents, and is now listed as the sole source in every article covering this story.
I agree that the president should be able to wiretap, but that he should have to go through a court to do so. The issue is not whether the president should be able to wiretap in times of war, the issue is that Bush broke the existing law (that was very lenient and gave him 72 hours to retroactively seek a warrant if the need was so pressing). Judging from the court's record, I would say that the cases that Bush did not get approval for would be cases that even the rubber-stamp FISA court found would find unwarranted.
If Bush is given the power to wiretap without a warrant, do you trust him to only use it against terrorists?? Why did Bush wait until he got caught to complain about having to get warrants?
Proponents of the wiretap policy have set up a false dichotomy between warrantless wiretaps and no wiretaps at all. They have convinced 60% of Americans that the other 40% of us don't want terrorists' phones to be tapped. That is not true. There is a third option here in the form of a special court specifically designed for obtaining warrants of a sensitive national security nature. I believe that there was just cause for every call that was tapped, and as such, a warrant from the FISA court could have easily been obtained in every individual case.
You talk about protecting democracy. Part of that is protecting individual oversight by a judge every time the rights of an American citizen are abridged, before they are abridged. Oversight as part of a huge list of names, by an overworked congressional committee every few months is not enough.
Counting military casualties (wounded and killed), there have been approximately 20,000 american victims of terrorism since September 11th. In that same time, approximately 6 million americans have been victims of violent crime. Yet, inexplicably, a solid majority of the american public seems to believe that a judge must approve the search of murderers and child rapists on a individual basis, but that an american citizen with even an innocent association with a terrorist does not deserve that individual attention. I disagree, and I'm not the only conservative to do so.
I believe that Bush acted in good faith, but that he made the wrong decision in this case. He had the option of removing all doubt of the legality of his actions, and chose instead to act unilaterally. If one terrorist is released due to a legal technicality that could have been so easily avoided, that will truly be a tragedy.
This space intentionally left blank.
Many Americans support the President. Many are afraid. Many afraid people make it possible for the government to greatly increase its power. Many people want this. If the government is breaking laws, it is because there is a war on! Serious new measures must be taken! This is what makes me afraid.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Your logic skills are amazing.
Did it ever occur to you that wiretaps can also be done in a legal way?
Did it ever register with you that prevention of the 9/11 attacks did not happen because of information not ending up at the right people, and misinterpretation of information, not because the information was not there?
It never occured to you that adding more and more information is just going to make that problem bigger and as a result makes things less safe?
Ah well, please go back to your fox induced reality, hope you are happy there, but please don't claim to be a sentient beign untill you learned something about logic and reasoning.
This wiretapping scandal can only get bigger as more and more layers get exposed.
If it doesn't happen fast, it could very well die. The American Public gets tired of the same story after it's discussed 6 or 7 times. Then the Super Bowl comes around. Then... OOO!!! SHINY~!!! etc. etc.
But, as the election nears, hopefully the Democrats will grow some you-know-whats and bring the subject to the foreground again.
If this was all true I wouldn't be able to tell you that XXXXXX XXXXXXXX killed JFK. They would censor it. Or that GWB plans to XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXX X XXXX XXX XXXX XX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX right before he XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXX. This whole eavsdropping thing is overrated.
During WWII, US and British officials indeed opened letters and snooped into communications on a large scale. But the crucial difference is that they had the legal authority to do it, granted through the proper constitutional channels. Censorship regulations allowed government officials to open letters and read cable messages; there 1200 British censors in a hotel in Bermuda monitoring transatlantic communications.
Even within the USA, censors listened in to cable communications; they also opened millions of letters and labelled them as such. Regulation of communication went as far as banning all messages ordering the delivery of flowers, because such messages were seen as offering too many possibilties for secret communication. Indeed it was illegal to send any cable message that the censors would not be able to easily understand.
The current NSA listening operation is a very different matter. It is clearly illegal act, as the president has no authority to grant himself additional powers, certainly not if there are already laws that regulate these. There is no point in the illegality, as the regulations are flexible enough, and no purpose, for FBI agents have stated that little useful information is coming from it. It is just an exercise in the unbridled authoritarianism that characterizes this White House.
In the mind of George W. Bush, the US constitution has apparently been replaced by one simple line: Because of the war I have declared, I am allowed to do whatever I want.
It doesnt matter if 100 presidents did it before.
It is a violation of the law.
Didnt your parents go over that whole if all your friends jumped off a bridge thing with you ?
What, 4 years wasn't enough time for the Dipshit-in-Chief to do things legally and ask congress to change existing law? Get a fucking clue.
And the number of people like me is growing, as witnessed by the 60% approval ratings for wiretapping actions that Bush enjoys.
Why is it that no poll can look like this: What do you think about the wiretapping?
Every time I debate this with people, they always talk about the fact that it's "known" terrorists on the other end so its excusable. I don't care if its your grandma on the other end. If an American at home is on the other end, why is it so imssposible for the administration to just get a warrant?! FISA grants almost every single request. FISA acts quickly, even in the middle of the night. FISA will even let you get the warrant after the fact! So...
Why won't the administration submit requests to FISA?
Ugh, if you do that, you make the language less useful. You hinder communication between all speakers of that language, and make it that much more difficult for someone to learn. The way that *your* talking about language changing is to shift around the meanings of existing words. The result of doing so is that now you even need to have the etymology sitting next to you to read a book written out of your generation.
BTW, "nice" and "mean" have exactly the definition that most people expect. You can also use slang/informal definitions that suit your purposes... but that is called sarcasm. "Nice" is a positive adjective, and "mean" is a negative one, with the only other adjective form being the mathematical one.
Also, "flammable" and "inflammable" have *always* meant the same thing. The "in" is from a latin preposition, not from the negative "in-" prefix. The "in" preposition that "inflammable" uses actually turns into an intensive prefix, and meant that something could be "enflamed". IOW, the same thing as "flammable".
Looks to me that your post is an example of why you shouldn't change the definitions of words to match slang. You add a dictionary entry describing the "new" use as slang/informal so that people don't get the idea that the word actually means what the trend use of the day wants it to mean. That way you keep a coherent language, but note other uses that people may encounter in literature. Of course, this requires you to learn how to use a dictionary.
The change of language, in the fashion that you describe, is a direct result of poor education and ignorance. In that respect, language does evolve, but it does so in a *negative* way. Formal education, the dictionary, and proper use in literature and formal speech, help to stave off the shift to a less expressive language.
You know, you americans desperately need a two-phase presidential elections. In a nutshell, they work like this:
First, you organize the vote normally. This is phase one. If any of the candidates gets over 50% of votes, he gets elected, and that's that. If none does, you organize a new vote, with the only two candidates being the two people who got the most votes in phase one. This is phase two; whoever wins it gets the presidency.
This way, if you don't want Bush in office, you can safely vote anyone but him; you don't need to concentrate your votes behind some "bad but better than Bush" candidate. If more than half of people votes for Bush, he gets elected anyway, no matter how tactical you try to be with your vote; and if less than half votes for him, it doesn't matter how the other votes gets distributed, you'll get a second vote phase anyway. At second phase, you can then choose to vote for Bush's opponent if you think he's better than Bush.
That's the system we use here in Finland, to avoid the kinds of problems you are having.
Of course, this would break the two-party system and turn it into a multiparty system, so it is unlikely to happen.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 was caught by wiretapping.
I did some quick Googling, and couldn't find answers to an importantquestion about the wiretapping you seem to be holding up as justification for the current situation in the US: was the Italian wiretapping legal or illegal?. Maybe the Italian police got a warrant. Maybe Italian law doesn't require a warrant. Does anyone know?
The trend on this list is of (great) American liberals. Bush does not fit this mold imo, from various perspectives. Also importantly, the War on Terror is a much different type on conflict than the wars these Presidents faced. The enemy is borderless, uniformless, with unknown numbers, etc. This type of war is virtually endless, whether we are in Iraq or out of Iraq.
This is exactly why I am worried! Against my will, some of my liberty has been given up in the name of security. But its not even temporary!
Look, Bush might be an evil doer in disguise who just tricked us into givng up our rights. Or, he might be an idiot that someone else is controlling and tricked us out of our rights. He could even be an smart, honest, good man (who happens to seem like an idiot) who has our best interests at heart and is stopping dozens of terrorists attacks so we can sleep at night.
But even if it is the latter of those possibilities, Bush won't be in power forever. Someone else could eventually come along that fits the first two descriptions. Thanks to the situation that has arisen and shows no signs of being put in check, any future leader can swopp in and use these powers for whatever he wants. Especially, since we have an enemy that is borderless, uniformless, with unknown numbers, etc. Our leaders could have these temporary powers indefinitely, as long as it suits them.
So, even if Bush *is* the good little boy scout, he still needs judical oversight, evenif its for the sake of the future, not now.
I'l tell you guys why, and I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk.
It's because they wouldn't have gotten the warrants. There's no other explanation for it: as you say, getting the warrants would have imposed no restrictions on their ability to conduct the intelligence operations, but that's provided that the warrants would have been granted. One of the provisions of FISA, as I understand it, is that they have to demonstrate that they're pretty damn sure no American citizen is going to be on the line they're wiretapping; this is probably the snag that they would have hit, which would have prevented the court from granting the warrant.
Sure, some other explanation is possible--but if they had a good one, I think we'd have heard it by now.
Find your friends!
It's one thing for governmenet computers to capture conversations, it's quite another to have a human listen to them. The main difference here is that the current administration has authorized the NSA to listen to those conversation without judicial oversight. No other administration has done this before.
If people were meant to go around nude, they would be born that way!
Unlike you, I don't believe that Bush acted in good faith. Every president has access to legal counsel to warn him when he is going beyond the bounds of his constitutional powers. If Bush wasn't warned, than his counsel is incompetant.
I believe that Bush was advised by his political advisors to extend his powers in the hope of regaining some of the executive power that was lost after the Nixon debacle. It's not difficult for federal agents to get court orders to place wiretaps when they are needed. This was just another place where Bush could try to increase the power of the presidency.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
You may laugh, but consider this; The Netherlands, the pesky little country I'm from actually has secret treaties with the US. These supercede our own constitution.
Do you have any citation for that? I'm Dutch and I've never heard of anything like this. In any case it sounds like it would be quite unconstitutional:
Please don't perpetuate urban legends without providing proof.
From that statement, it sounds like you value the Brooklyn Bridge more than you value the Bill of Rights. Is that correct? An interesting choice but I would disagree with you. A thousand Brooklyn Bridges don't come close to the value of the Bill of Rights. Bridges are way easier to rebuild/restore than civil rights.
The problem isn't fear that someone might listen in on a conversation to Iraq or Afghanistan, the problem is that "King" George couldn't be bothered to follow the law. FISA provides for retroactive wiretapping warrents; listen to who want and get a warrent later, but he couldn't even do that. The fact that the current sitting President commited a felony(and even admitted to it on national tv) and hasn't be arrested or impeached is the problem. The hub-bub about domestic spying is a disattraction away from the actual crime.
And as for the "attack" on the Brooklyn Bridge.... Do you really believe the Brooklyn Bridge could be taken down with blowtorches?
BBC article about Bush/NSA domestic spying
From the article...
"Several officials said the eavesdropping programme had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalised citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches.
US DoJ statement about Iyman Faris
From the US Dept. of Justice...
According to Faris' admission, the operational leader then told Faris that al Qaeda was planning two simultaneous attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. The al Qaeda leader spoke with Faris about destroying a bridge in New York City by severing its suspension cables, and tasked Faris with obtaining the equipment needed for that operation.
Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in April 2002, he researched "gas cutters" - the equipment for severing bridge suspension cables
I have a hard time believing a bunch of guys with blowtorches could cut enough cables on the bridge to make it fall. I'm going to go out on a limb and say someone would stop them well before they even got close.
Please make an effort to see past the talking heads and the spin. Commit some time to researching events, you'll be better informed and the world might be a better place for it.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
The President took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not the Brooklyn Bridge.
It'd be nice if Cringely put in something about the Rule of Law.
It means that no one, not even the President, is above the law. That means that if the President commits a crime, then he/she is held responsible for the crime, and punished like you would be if you'd broken the law. Without the rule of law, there would be widespread corruption in the political and legal systems, because those governing and enforcing the law would be the people in charge, and not the electorate.
There are systems in place to take over the country should the President find himself in jail for authorizing illegal spying.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I find it amusing how the new school "conservatives" (I'm an old school conservative) are so gung-ho about strict interpretation of the constitution, and not "deriving" governmental authority on abstruse theories (commerce clause, anyone?) but they are willing to turn a blind eye to plain language when it suits them: A vaguely remember when conservatives were in favor of limiting government, especially the federal government, and most especially the executive branch. Seems like, what, maybe five years ago they just dropped that long standing pillar of conservative ideology, along with fiscal restraint and sound judgment. Now the "conservatives" are all about a nanny state on steroids that spends like a drunken sailor and treats the constitution like a "quaint" piece of litter from the past, to be ignored when it doesn't suit them.
I almost wonder if perhaps they never really were conservative in the first place, and just used us in a cynical grab for power.
--MarkusQ
"The question has centered around whether or not FISA now requires him to get a warrant for such intelligence gathering."
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!
There is little to no debate about whether the President can do warrantless intelligence gathering on FOREIGN intelligence.
The debate centers on whether he can do it for DOMESTIC intelligence gathering. The answer is almost certainly not legally except perhaps in a time of DECLARED war.
People who support the President's interpretation like to mix these separate issues. Because illegal wiretaps is an impeachable offense.
The Bill of Rights restricts the actions "the government" may take against "the people". That means the US government may not act against anyone in ways that violate the constition anywhere... regardless of whether or not they are on US soil.
The reason I choose not to debate it is because it has been debated here before in much more detail. Check the archives.
I'm sorry that you chose to take the example as some sort of silly partisan argument rather than recognizing it as merely one (personal, in this case) example of Wikipedia bias.
Pretend that my information was false (which you *assume* it was given the scare quotes you put around the word.
It still doesn't justify the deletioon of my changes on the grounds that "the book probalby doesn't even exist" when it is available from Amazon.
It would appear the you thoroughly missed that.
The point (as Wikipedia themselves say) is that the parts that are controversial may be wrong because of the controversy.
I do not lead my readers to believe that it is implicitly anti-Bush. I simply give them an experiment. Learn to read, eh?
I do believe that the on-line world is much more strongly anti-Bush/anti-Conservative than the population in general. I could go into reasons but your closed little mind and inability to read makes it irrelevant.
The only good weather is bad weather.
If I remember correctly, the "right to abortion" via the privacy argument has it's roots in Amendment IV in the Bill of Rights:
"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."
This argument hinges on at what point through gestation does a genetic human become a person, and thus covered by the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enumerated in the Declaration of Independance. I could go into specific beliefs and arguments as to when, but this isn't the place and would likely start a flame war anyway.
And anyway, be careful with that statement "I do know that United States consitutional law is not as simple as just reading the constitution and interpreting the words the way you understand them in everyday speech." If you give the unquestioned authority to interpret the law to polititians, they will ultimately interpret it in the way that gives them the most power over you.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.