Slashdot Mirror
The NSA Knows Who You've Called
Jamie adds: Traditionally, the devices which record dialed phone numbers are called pen registers, and trap-and-trace devices. The ECPA provided some legal privacy protection. It was controversial when Section 214 of the Patriot Act amended 50 USC 1842 to allow the FBI to record this information with minimal oversight. The Department of Justice has been required for some time to report to Congress the number of pen registers and trap-and-traces, though in recent years [PDF, see question 10] it declared that information classified.
If anyone has information about how the NSA, as opposed to the FBI, has been involved in domestic phone number collection, please post links in the discussion.
In related news, the National Security Agency has closed down an inquiry into the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program," a separate program from this one, by refusing to grant security clearance to the lawyers in the Department of Justice. The NSA and the DoJ are both established under the executive.
I for one suggest NSA take aim at Qwest and bomb them back to to the PSTN-age!
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
What an awesome tool for a government agency to have!
... you approach an airport terminal and hand them your ID card (or scan your arm) but you can't board the plane because you've been making too many phone calls to your friends who happen to have a rap sheet. </tinhat>
You know what I love? Scenarios! How about this one: You're arrested as a suspect for a crime you didn't commit. The government doesn't have anything on you except that there are no other suspects or witnesses. What they do have, is a network of vertices (phones) and edges (calls) spanning the past year of your life. They also have a list of "dirty" nodes or telephone users who have a rap sheet or ties to anti-American groups.
Thanks to Dijkstra's & the Bellman-Ford algorithms, it's a hop skip and a jump to a prosecutor saying "we have records showing you called your mother on such and such date prompting her to call her hair dresser who has been forwarding money to his family living in Mexico that has ties to Islamic Extremist groups!"
Farfetched? Maybe. But you don't have to be a Sci-Fi author to imagine crazy abuses of this data.
In the eyes of the government, we are all innocent until proven guilty. This could easily be turned into a data mining tool making some of us "less innocent" than others. And frankly, I'm not looking forward to that day.
<tinhat> Imagine a time and place where you have a security rating
My work here is dung.
Actually Bin Laden came that close to being snuffed by the NSA, since they have tapes of him talking to his mother by sat-phone, while he was in Afghanistan and she was in Saudi Arabia. This is why Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan using long-range cruise missiles. They missed him, too, by a few minutes, unfortunately.
Of course, last I heard, he only used trusted human couriers to deliver messages. He may be a madman, but he is a smart madman. And most of these couriers were not American, but Pakistani and Saudi citizens, and they try to be as discreet -- and "un-islamist" as possible. So the NSA domestic spying program is definitely not useful against terrorists. But remember, kids, if we can't listen to your phone, the terrorists have won!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Currently it's a simple message saying I'm not available and to leave a message. Now I'll have to add:
Be aware that the National Security Agency may be recording this call and anything you say may be used against you. I have no control over this situation as my phone provider is turning over this information on all its customers to the NSA.
Can't wait to hear the questions about this when people start calling.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
One of the great things about the public education system is that it doesn't teach a critical understanding of historical events. Take police states for example. Most people in the US think they're built in a day and that a police state only exists when thugs in snazzy uniforms goosestep down the street. They not only don't know, but don't even want to know what leads up to the formation of a police state.
You know what does? People railing against one socio-political-economic class as the root problem of society. Newsflash, most classes are where they are for reasons they could have helped or legitimately earned. A pluralist society needs that class diversity to reinforce individualism. And let's not forget perceived enemies of all types. Then there's the "just give up part of your liberty and you'll be safe, if you've got nothing to hide of course." It's like gun control. There are a lot of cops out there who can't shoot worth a damn and police departments are legendary for resistance to change. Do you trust them with your daily safety? I don't.
When people say to you "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," you can respond (which I usually do) with "no decent, civilized person would ever have grounds to criticize the basic checks and balances that you oppose."
Repeat after me: The terrorist threat is minimal.
In the last ten years, smoking has killed 4 million Americans. Traffic has killed 400.000. Terrorism has killed 4.000. When will you stop handing total power to the government just to fight this one, close to irrelevant risk? And why not spend those many billions on the healthcare system and traffic safety?
Yeah, and the US is much better???
What amazes me about the US is that I constantly hear from many of the people there how great a country is because it's free. Freedom, freedom, "land of the FREE", etc etc etc. Most of this sort of shit comes from the people who SUPPORT the opposite of freedom like that scary government you guys have got. Where I'm from (New Zealand) we don't go on about how great it is to be free because we live it. It's normal to us, it's what we're used to we take it for granted and that's the way it should be. I'm sure many will argue that point that it can't be taken for granted and say things like, "Your Freedom should be DEFENDED". Maybe for you but not for me. If it's not being attacked it doesn't need defence.
We don't have no NSA, FBI, CIA, weird gun laws, death penalties and when it comes to crime - shit if a cat gets stuck up a tree it's basically front page news!
The USA and Korea are not the two extremes of the world - get out and travel a bit more, I think you may be surprised what your country is missing.
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
I think you don't appreciate how clever this really is. Once the terrorists are no longer jealous of your freedom, they will lose interest and leave you alone. All the NSA has to do is remove all of your freedoms and the problem is solved.
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can leave until the day after.
Step 1) Put the technological infrastructure in place
Step 2) Place your political friends and allies in charge of the infrastructure
Step 3) Reduce measures to control abuse of they system by claiming it's in the interests of "national security"
Step 4) Undermine the efforts of your political enemies with your newfound power
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
FUCK NO.
I actually can't believe that it's gotten to this point. Every day on the news there is unveiled yet another invasion on my privacy and the privacy of my fellow citizens. Every day there is another civil liberty trounced.
Every day there is news of how Dick Cheney is getting fatter on Halbituron dollars with no-bid contracts. Every day there is news of Bush appointing an old friend or serious yes-man to some high-level position in government that causes nothing but stress.
And every day, the eyes of the people in this country glaze over and they quickly forget about the attrocities to our rights revealed from the day before. I don't understand the mentality.
I actually find myself getting physically angry these days at the hubris with which the executive operates. There is no one standing in their way. Illegal wiretapping is now all but forgotten because the executive has envoked the "State Secrets" privledge - it's not even a real law, but part of what is known as "common law" but judges won't stand UP to these people.
When you are a person hell-bent on control and dictatorship, it's hard to be stopped when the people who have the power to stop someone won't step up. Hell, just yesterday I read that GW Bush was saying how wonderful a president Jeb Bush would make. The man that botched the Florida election in 2000, the man with ties to arguably the most powerful family in the country if not the world... With two Bushes we have seen at least 3 wars.
And the country will vote for Jeb. And the Bushes will continue to reign supreme. Already GW Bush has called for an end to presidental term limits. No surprise he'd want that passed before Jeb is elected.
This country is no longer a democracy or even a republic. I get no say, and it is quite clear that the leaders in Washington in no way represent the will of the people. The country is ruled by money, greed, and power.
I really, really hate to make this analogy. I loathe it actually. But the parallels between current events in the US and Nazi Germany are striking. Germany launched war based on the call to stamp out terrorisim. They controlled the populace thorough fear of outsiders, destroyed international trust, and made the country a very us-vs-them scenario of patriotism that allowed a fanatic to sieze control. Hitler very much said (paraphrased) "I can beat terrorism but only if you grant me more power than I normally have." Hello Patriot Act. And finally, Nazi Germany was stupidly meticulous with their records, including serious amounts of domestic spying.
People. Listen. We are now under-represented if not completely un-represented. The federal government is no longer a checks-and-balances system, with unprecidented power being granted to the executive, going completely unchallenged. I have never before seen this ability to completely shut down investigations into illegal activities. Futher, no presidency has ever seen this degree of secrecy. We are governed by laws that we AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO READ. How can you be governed by laws that the government won't even acknowledge exist??
I have become a person I never wanted to be. Conspiracy theory fills my head. But I'm not reading this stuff on some horrible "bushkills.com" site or something. Everything I read is on the front page of /. or the NY Times or Washington Post.
So I'm afraid. Not sure there is anything I can do but try to rally people behind me and behind the very few who actually dare say "no" to the executive. I never thought I'd live in this type of fear of my government, and in fear that we may be witnessing the end of the government as our forefathers saw it.
My only solace is that things of this nature have happened in the past, and have somehow righted themselves. So let's hope that this is just another Linconesque suspension of habius corpus, and that these wrongs will eventually be righted. But with such secrecy, and so much more going on than I will ever know about...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I think it's time to Slashdot these companies.
6
If you have Verizon, MCI, AT&T, SBC, or BellSouth for local phone service or long distance, DIAL 0 and complain to the operator.
If you have Cingular, AT&T, or Verizon for cell phone service, DIAL 611 and get a customer service rep on the line to complain to. REMIND THEM THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR AGREEMENT WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU CAN SWITCH TO ANOTHER PROVIDER WITHOUT PENALTY.
More info here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/11/91046/796
The desire of the vast majority of Americans to root out terror in the US has given the government the mandate to use communication records.
I'm sorry but that simply is not the case. Most of the laws sent by congress are written by lobbyists now. What is *your* lobbyist doing about it? Don't have one? Thought not. That is why they spy on you.
Sophisticated terrorists already know they are being spied on and avoid electronic communication. For example, Bin laden uses human couriers for this very reason. My phone company simply betrayed me for money. The US government does it because in it's opinion, it is above the law, and it fears disruption of the current cozy system.
I think they are scared of political movements, rather than terrorists. For instance, people of Mexican origin and / or nationality are organizing now. Where will that lead? There is more income inequality now than decades past. Will that ignite some sort of movement to re-adjust the balance of power between companies and workers?
That is what scares the government. It could bring an end to Facism. (No, I'm not saying they're Nazis. But they are authoritarian, rule with a bunch of companies, and suppress dissent.)
Cheers,
-b
If you were actually able to exercise that right, then it might be understandable. But the logic falls down when you consider:
When are you going to do this?
So when are you going to topple the government? It seems more like you are going to sit back and let your government turn into a dictatorship, all the while saying "we're free because we have the right to own guns..."
If you aren't going to use them, you might as well not have them. Your guns have done nothing whatsoever to protect your freedom and they will continue to do nothing as long as they are not used.
Interesting. You've conflated the (obviously and unarguably true) fact that most Americans want the government to prevent terrorist attacks against us with the assertion that the administration is free to do whatever it wants in pursuit of that goal.
Obviously, I disagree. Defense of our country still must take place within the framework of our system of laws and the Constitution of the United States. To the degree that the laws need amending, I think that they clearly should be - although the current administration has shied away from this path. Instead, the Attorney General has repeatedly asserted that laws governing the gathering of intelligence data, even domestically, are not within the purview of Congress to issue, and that the executive branch can simply disregard them. When Congress has offered to make changes to legislation to make it more palatable to the administration, their offers were rebuffed: simply put, the administration does not wish to be governed by laws, regardless of their actual content.
As for the rhetorical device you use - that the opinions you hold are that of the "great silent majority" - I can only say that in polls on a similar issue (the "warrantless wiretap" question), the data would seem to hold otherwise. In a poll run by the American Research Group, there was a near 50-50 split on the issue of whether the president should be censured over the NSA warrantless wiretap issue.
Republicans (33%): Favor censure: 29% Oppose censure: 57% Undecided: 14%
Democrats (37%): Favor censure: 70% Oppose censure: 26% Undecided: 4%
Independents (30%): Favor censure: 42% Oppose censure: 47% Undecided: 11%
Total: Favor censure: 46% Oppose censure: 44% Undecided: 10%
I assume for the sake of this arugment that if approximately half of those polled supported a censure resolution on this issue, then more than half would be opposed to the wiretaps generally.
The metric shouldn't be whether or not the current administration/government officials/law enforcement officials (etc) are abusing power and invading privacy, but rather whether or not any given power can be abused and what oversight exists to protect the rights of the innocent (or the accused) in the case that such abuse happens.
Absolutely. Even if someone is a die-hard Republican who trusts the party religiously and believes that no wrongdoing has ever been done by the administration, they need to consider the possibility that the tools and powers established over the last 6 years may someday be in the hand of a Democrat president. For all the conservatives out there, picture Hillary Clinton with unlimited wiretapping and information access.
I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now. Was it 9/11? Did they get scared, are they that weak that they're hoping for any piece of illusionary safety they can scrabble up? The more cynical part of me says no, it's because all the branches of the government are controlled by Republicans now, and they want more power for their guys.
The complete and total lack of oversight, and additionally the strident opposition to any kind of oversight of control, is very troubling. Take the FISA warrants issue. There is one judge who approves FISA warrants. He's had this job for years. He has a security clearance higher then God. He barely ever turns down a warrant request, somthing like over 90 percent are approved. This judge is on call 24/7, and has signed warrant requests in his pajamas. If the government doesn't want to wait for a warrant, they can go ahead and wiretap on a target, if they think it's really really urgent, and they have 3 fucking days to go and get the warrant after the fact. They have the ability to essentially get the warrant to search the house after they've searched it. How much easier could it be? It's not like the administration never used or obtained FISA warrants either, they used it lots, so it's not like they were opposed to the program as a whole or somehow unaware of it.
What that means is one of two things. Either the people doing the wiretapping were lazy, and didn't want to get a warrant, or they were doing something blatantly illegal and a blatant abuse of power, like spying on completely innocent people for political reasons during an election campaign or something similar, and didn't want anyone to know about it. Even if it's just laziness, I'm not happy about it, I don't want the defenders of the country to be too lazy to do their job right.
that was longer than expected, but a rant felt necessary
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
I never said that fighting the war on terrorism would require the creation of "a police state." Nor did I suggest that we are already living in a police state, although you seem fairly quick to want me to say that - perhaps it's easier to label me a wild-eyed hippie freak than to, you know, actually address the thing that I said. Which was essentially this:
I didn't call Alberto Gonzales a fascist, or Bush a liar, and I haven't called for Rumsfeld to be fired. (See my earlier point about creating a strawman.)
What I did say was that the administration has claimed repeatedly that Congress does not have the legal authority to regulate any aspect of the administration's intelligence gathering operation. That's not name calling, it's fact: FISA clearly and unambiguously lays out the framework for conducting certain kinds of surveillance, and the administration has flat out said that it doesn't need to abide by those rules. I'm not demonizing the administration, I'm quoting them, and if you think I'm exaggerating you should actually read the memorandums and testimony from Gonzales and Yoo. I leave googling that testimony as an exercise for the reader.
I'll be the first to admit that polls are flawed. If you choose to believe that this is because of a media conspiracy on the part of the NYT, CNN, and the rest of what's often called the "liberal media," fine. But I think that even you would have a hard time arguing that Fox News is biased towards the left, and even they are showing anemic poll numbers for the president. The reason I brought the poll numbers about the censure issue up in the first place is because you asserted that a "great silent majority" of American citizens sided with you on this issue: I can only assume you called them silent because of their failure to speak up in polls like this one.
As for whether or not this is a "mindless partisan rant," I leave it to the readers of Slashdot to decide for themselves which one of us is trying to make this into a partisan issue. But in the interest of disclosure: I think it's the one who implied that I'm a "narcissist" and a "loonie."
...you're not the only one. Take a look: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12729893/
t _d_eisenhower.html/
My political principles, if this were the 90s, would be a mix of Democrat and Republican and I would feel fairly comfortable labelling myself a liberterian and not sweating it. However, the things I liked about the Republicans, like fiscal responsibility, a strong military, and fierce protection of privacy, have all been thrown to the winds. Believe me, funneling billions of dollars into fat cat contractors and wearing down our servicemembers in conflict after conflict does not make a strong military. Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, saying "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Eisenhower said a lot of smart stuff, check it out: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwigh
"Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America."
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."
"Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
"Only Americans can hurt America."
And a personal favorite,
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Wish I'd been around for him.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction