Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cringely on Domestic Eavesdropping

Posted by Zonk on from the tomorrow-comes-today dept.

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."

13 of 584 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, great, guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yeah, great, guess what by TheNoxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pardon my ignorance, but where, precisely, does the Constitution give the President the authority to override the Bill of Rights?

      --
      Ex nihilo nihil fit.
    2. Re:Yeah, great, guess what by damsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course not, he even sent Japanese Americans to happy sunshine camps.

    3. Re:Yeah, great, guess what by TheNoxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pardon? The myth that the Japanese could've conquered the United States, is at best, a laughable one. The Japanese attack on American is known as a "naked assault" because they had no chance of winning, at all. After Germany fell, the small, however feirce, Japanese army was *doomed*. Not only that, but the use of massive firebombs on civilian targets was a violation of the Geneva Convention, and is a tactic called, ironically, "Terror-Bombing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing). Hundreds of thousands died in the fire-bombing on Tokyo and Kobe, not to mention Dresden and Hamburg, all of which were massive civilian populations, not military installations. While the atomic bombing of a civilian target forced the Japanese to surrender early, the ethics of the genocidal slaughtering hundreds of thousands merely to cow the enemy military into submission is simply barbaric, inhuman, and evil.

      Do you see a corellation here? The same tactics the US Military used on its targets is now being used against our own populace by a small, militant Islamic faction to get its way. Hell, we even trained them. Maybe that's why we get angry at the goverment for trying to thieve our rights away for trying to fix its own fuckups.

      --
      Ex nihilo nihil fit.
    4. Re:Yeah, great, guess what by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And the "domestic spying" HAS caught at least one guy. Iyman Faris's plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was discovered through monitoring his phone calls.

      This is the guy who was going to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a cutting torch. We could have let him try it and he'd still be out there trying to cut through those cables. His plan was so stupid it could qualify as material on the 3 Stooges.

      And this is your big "evidence" that domestic spying thwarts terrorism? I think people like you are the problem as much as the Bush administration. You'd sell out liberty and freedom just to preserve a false sense of security for your fat, dumpy Lay-Z-Boy sitting, SUV driving ass. You're a gutless, spineless, disgusting example of what America has become.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  2. Does this make it right? by sriehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Okay... by TheNoxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Sounds like a great security measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > From before Pearl Harbor

    Soooo... how'd that work out?

  5. Who cares if is wrong. by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  6. Bad news kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Unlike you, so much the same... by revscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Unlike you, so much the same... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. It's not black and white! by Trinition · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped.

    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?

    1. Its OK no matter what
    2. It would be ok if the admin got FISA to grant warrants
    3. It is no tOK under any circumstances

    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?

    1. They're not wiretapping who they say they are so no court would actually grant such warrants
    2. There are so many terrorist-connected calls coming out of America it would overwhelm the system
    3. The administration is trying to save taxpayer dollars by cutting down on paper usage