Slashdot Mirror
FBI Releases Secret Subpoena Information
gollum123 writes to mention a CNN article, reporting on an FBI information release. The number of secret subpoenas the Bureau filed last year reached 3,501. These documents allowed access to credit card records, bank statements, telephone records, and internet access logs for thousands of legal citizens without asking for a court's permission. From the article: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the same panel that signs off on applications for business records warrants, also approved 2,072 special warrants last year for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies. The record number is more than twice as many as were issued in 2000, the last full year before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
secret Subpoena are they? Still, I am amazed that this information was ever released, I don't know how the US legal system works but in England the Government an stop the release of any information (even under the Freedom of information act) which might affect "national security", it seems strange to me that the US adiminstration has actually let this stuff get out. I also wonder how many of the people were bona fide terrorists...
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.
Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.
The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.
Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, B
The number of secret subpoenas the Bureau filed last year reached 3,501.
Wow! I bet they have a lot of terrorists to show for all that work. Right...?
::crickets chirping::
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
What are the odds that there are 3000 invividual situations that legitmately warrant issuing a secret subpeona. That is the REAL question. There should be no such thing. Every order should go through the courts, through a judge. Let it be sealed, let it be 'secret' that way but there needs to be a check to the power of law enforcement.
You're fogetting a few things ...
If each of the 3000 people who was secretly spied on had contact with only 20 people, that's a pool of 60,000 additional people whose privacy was "incidently" violated.
So now they've got, not 3,000, but 63,000 "names of interest."
Take it one level further for each of the additional 60,000 ... 60,000 x 20 = 1,200,000.
It grows pretty fast. The danger is these secret searches escalating into their version of the Kevin Bacon game.
I think there were less victims of terrorism in the last 50 years in the USA than the number of people wiretapped. What are the odds that I (or any one of us) has to worry about being killed this year? I don't think the odds are high enough to worry about.
On the tangent a bit, according to some results 100k+ people have died in the last few years thanks to the war in Iraq. Oh, but they weren't roman^Wamerican citizens, so we don't talk about them and it makes it all right, right?
My point is, why the craze about terrorism and not about sufferings caused by actions supposedly taken against terrorism? The answer is simple, currently most of the media runs "managed" news. They don't "censor", just set a very low weight to otherwise important news, that is their biggest power not leaning/bending opinions with words.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
it, not Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone just published it.
Link : One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush
"What are the odds that I (or any one of us) has to worry about being killed this year? I don't think the odds are high enough to worry about."
outside of 2001, fewer people have died in America from international terrorism than have drowned in toilets. Hell, if you consider how many people die from eating peanuts each year then it really is them that you should be afraid of...
On a slightly different note, one of the main purpose of terrorism is to generate "advertising" in a lot of circumastances, and I do think that the 9/11 attacks were for this end, being afraid of terrorism, changing what you do in you life is letting the terrorist win; it gives them what they want.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Last year, when trying to kill time in DC (I'm from Ohio), I decided to head out to a bar. I noticed a bachaelorette party going into a particular bar and decided that's wehre I'd spend my evening (seemed like an easy decision). I handed over my credit card and opened a tab.
I kept trying to get the attention of some of those girls, but none of them so much as returned my glances. So I struck up a conversation with the friendly guy next to me.
Turns out the girls were ignoring me because it was a gay bar!
Now, if someone looks through my credit card history, they're going to think I'm into men.
So all I can say is, these secret warrants suck! And if you're FBI and monitoring my internet use and credit card history--I'm not gay! Really! I just hope your software is good enough to corelate this post with that Visa log.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
These figures don't count George Bush's "we don't need no steenkin' paperwork" illegal wiretaps.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
No; the problem is that when we give up our basic freedoms to catch criminals trying to take away our freedoms, the criminals get what they want. There are plenty of legal criminal-justice procedures that can catch the bad guys without making the United States into a police state.
You cannot have it both ways.
According to whom? Since when did the choice become "give up your freedoms to us or give up your lives to them"? And need I quote Mr. Benjamin Franklin to say that anyone who makes such a demand deserves neither freedom nor security?
People are worried that some government agency is going after bank records and phone records convienently ignore the fact that businesses do it all the time and legally.
Business = private organization with voluntary membership. Government = public organization with compulsory membership. If you can't tell the difference, then go back to high school civics.
The government actually has to get permission from the courts. That is our protection.
Not according to the PATRIOT Act.
Yeah mistakes are going to be made, some people who have no guilt are going to have their records examined. Thats a small price to pay to at least try and stop another 9-11 from occuring. Yeah I know, its the right wings mantra, hide behind the fear of another 9-11. Too bad its a valid point. It sucks but there are far more loonies out there looking to deprive us of our freedom and lives than there are government workers trying to take your rights.
No, it's not a valid point. It's a demonstration of the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion, much like the "do you want the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan?" defense of the Iraq war.
As for your second assertion, I'm willing to bet that the government is MUCH better equipped to take away our rights than "the terrorists." The terrorists have a handful of nuts with shoe-bombs and AK-47's. The government has an army numbering in the hundreds of thousands, which, while not directly for the idea of taking away your rights, must follow the commands of the few people who *are* interested in doing so.
You freely give up your privacy to any number of corporations, publish your thoughts out in the open on the net, and yet when the government follows the laws established to insure that it operates in the intrest of you and others you cry about it?
Once again. Business and internet = voluntary. Government = compulsory.
Also, if you are so naive as to believe that every law out there is to "insure (sic) that [the government] operates in the intrest (sic) of you and others," then I can only laugh.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
> What are the odds that there are 3000 invividual situations that legitmately warrant issuing a secret subpeona
A couple of buddies of mine just went through a secret subpeona last weekend and believe me it was no picnic for them.
Basically, they were flying back from a NASCAR race in their little puddle jumper, had to divert away from their flight plan due to a weather situation. The guy flying did everything in the correct manner, notified air traffic control, stayed away from the weather, etc.
Unfortunately, what my pilot buddy didn't know was that he was overflying George Bush who was physically at the military base whose airspace my buddy was traversing (legitimately mind you, they've done it three previous times without incident).
To make a long story short, an F16 was involved (not good), a large irritated rotweiler (not good) was involved, spread-eagled face-down positions were involved (not good), and several loaded, safeties off, pointed at my buddies, shotguns were involved (not good).
During the three hour interrogation, the secret service asked my pilot buddy "So Mr. So and So, just exactly what is up with you exploring the George Bush bobble-head doll website on so and so date". My buddy replied, "Oh, that had to have been my ultra-liberal wife looking at those websites". Which is 100 percent the case given I know what a fan of GWB my friend is and how his wife doesn't particularly care for GWB.
So the duration between the time my buddies were first spotted "off-course" and the interrogation was about 2.5 hours to three hours.
During that three hours they figured out who owned the plane, where they were supposed to land, had police and SS waiting for them there (plus at an alternate airport), and got my buddy's surfing logs out to a field agent.
The secret service guy did tell my buddy that this sort of situation happens all the time in the Washington DC area.
So 3,000 occurances a year nationwide doesn't surprise me a bit given a couple of my bone-headed NASCAR enjoying buddies got caught up in it last weekend.
Was the action warranted? That's debatable, and always will be. My buddies certainly didn't care for it, especially since one of them had been needing to urinate for the 5 hours or so hours prior to landing and the secret service really just didn't care that much about his urinary issues.
One thing it did do was that it got my buddies out the door a lot quicker than if they had been forced to be held overnight in a jail cell (not good) while a judge looked it all over and gave her approval.
What if some aids infected inmate had decided to make one of my buddies his new girlfriend for the night? That would have been a lot worse than having your rights trampled per having a judge issue a subpeona to get your GWB bobblehead dool surfing habits revealed. Or is there someone out there who would rather have had the aids?
Caution: Contents under pressure
"I do normally take the view that if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear"
That's a viewpoint I hear all the time, and I must confess that I'm completely mystified by it. Do people who believe this think the government will never abuse it's power? They're abusing their power right now and have many times before -- that's true of almost every government in human hisotry. You'd have nothing to fear when doing nothing wrong only if the government was completely honest. The more power they have the more they'll abuse it, as they keep proving every day. I should think that would be obvious.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
What if you're trying to correct the corrupt practices of a prior group of politicians who have no desire to step down? Sure, you might be honest, upstanding, etc. but you're a person who is doing nothing wrong. Are you still so sure there's not a concern about your eligibility for the free and wholesale monitoring of your communications? Keep in mind that East Germany had an estimated 30% of the country that had ties to the Stasi secret police - informants and the like. It didn't happen overnight, but possibly with incremental (or silent) intrusions into the citizens lives - for the safety of the country.
There are a few problems that come up with this attitude.
First, as people have stated, the government can think you are doing something wrong even if you aren't, or they can claim you are. Or other people who bear you ill will can "out" you.
Second, what if you don't morally agree with the laws? If you are seeking to change the laws that you find offensive, it would make you an instant target: "he doesn't agree with the law, therefore it's obvious he's breaking it."
Next, there are so many little laws that no one follows or everyone bends. It's illegal to spit in some places for instance, or certain sex acts are illegal. If the government has something else against you, they can leverage these little laws against you. Or they can simply try to expose some embarrassing part of your life, cornering you into working for them for something or other.
Finally, take something like the speed limit. Most people can drive by a police officer at +10mph over the speed limit and not worry about being pulled over for a ticket. Most people think this is just a case of the officer being flexible and reasonable. Unfortunately, there is no room for flexibility or reason in law enforcement. If something requires 'flexibility' and 'reasonableness' then it means it's FLAWED. Here's why: if someone in a beat up old car with dreads smoking a hand-rolled cigarette drives by a cop at +10mph over the speed limit, he's gonna get pulled over. Yup, therein lies the problem with 'flexibility' and 'reasonability.' Most people become passive sheep in the face of it, thinking, oh, it's a good thing to have a law that restricts dangerous behavior but the police won't nab me for it because they're understanding that it's rush hour and it requires situational enforcement. In reality, such laws empower the police to arrest at will. Everyone is breaking the law all the time. Now you just pick who you want to spy on or target. Racial profiling or any other excuse you need to pick on someone, don't worry, chances are they're already breaking the law in some capacity.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
per having a judge issue a subpeona to get your GWB bobblehead dool surfing habits revealed.
A) In a SANE world, he'd have been held or released on the basis of his actual infringement (flying through Bush's Secret Magical Zone). Websurfing habits would not come into play because it would have nothing to do with it.
B) How would the judge issue a warrant to get their past websurfing habits? Is this the real secret that Bush is hiding from us? That the NSA employs Timecops? If so why don't they just go back in time and kill my gr
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
That's how most men become homosexuals. They accidentally go into a gay bar, and the next thing they know, they're sucked into the homosexual lifestyle.
we started to notice . . . a few rainbows posted around the place
I'm sure you know by now to only go into bars that have a leather motif if you want to avoid gay bars.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I do think that the 9/11 attacks were for this end, being afraid of terrorism, changing what you do in you life is letting the terrorist win; it gives them what they want.
Also, keep in mind that according to the 9/11 report, that the reason there was no warning was because the bad guys did not use any electronic form of communication.
So, either terrorists are now dumber than they used to be, or the American public is.
Second most ISPs don't keep logs on your current web traffic, it's simply too much data to keep, most ISPs don't keep router logs more then a week (if they keep them at all, which themselves are useless and can takes hours to match them with DHCP logs and then with websites), DHCP logs are kept for a greater amount of time. Second the FBI doesn't care if you visit the normal anti-GWB websites, they might care if you visited it at the same time as going to Jihad Jim's bomb making HOWTO.
Also none of the pilots have been arrested because violating a TFR is not a crime, it's a regulatory action between the pilot and the FAA. The passengers would not have been effected one bit, since they did nothing wrong.