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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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