Slashdot Mirror
The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
This Just In: NSA Whistleblower's body found dead in burlap sack on side of road only hours after his identiy made public...
Mark Klein is a great American hero and a patriot.
Expecting the neo-con mod-down in 3...2...1..
Forbes has an article on how the EFF has won the first round by getting the judge to agree that the documents should be released. Of course, AT&T will get a chance to scrub them clean of "trade secrets", a loophole they will no doubt abuse. However, at least the judge is showing a willingness to get down into the nitty-gritty.
Electric Monkey Pants
Documents remain sealed, but remain in evidence.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Nothing will come of this.
When the evidence surfaced, there was the usual fracas about rights and privacy and yadda yadda, and then nothing got done for a few days. Then, the contents of this so-called secret room became public knowledge (Those commercially available network monitoring devices that were mentioned in a previous slashdot article.)
Those few days were more than enough to completely change the contents of that room. I'm not saying that that is what happened, I'm just saying that there is no way for us to know if the contents of the supposed secret room stayed the same. What would you do if you were the NSA and you were monitoring a goodly percentage of internet traffic and got found out? You'd try your damndest to hide it, because you're the NSA and that's what you do.
Plus, if any of this gets successfully filed under 'Homeland Security' you're never going to get a judge to do anything but blow smoke.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
In every email message mention cocaine, opium, attack the instillation, anthrax, bombs, nuclear, atomic & etc.
wouldn't this slow down the efforts?
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
That's a flat-out wrong definition used by the Karl Rovian apologists. What does a "leaker" do when the subject of contention is the executive branch? Go to the cops and let the case get dropped? A leaker is anyone who discloses protected information, regardless of the recipient. A whistleblower is leaker releasing evidence of illegal or unauthorized activity or a coverup of that activity.
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...the public is the ultimate authority, so there is no difference between revealing information to the public and revealing it to the authorities.
The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.
>When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?
don't be silly, impeachments are about sex, not abuses of power. Noone is giving the pres a blowjob in the oval office, ergo, no impeachment.
Sitting Walrus Blog
The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president).
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.
Will there ever be an end to the war on terra?
It's so simple! Since it doesn't actually exist, all you have to do is stop uttering that stupid meme, and it goes away. Poof! You win the war on terra.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
The question is, when will the dam finally burst?
I think it's about to. We'll see in November. Although I'm personally not voting Democrat, I'm splitting my vote among various losers, which is closest to "none of the above". I'm damned sick of both parties (although the Repubs have more of my ire at present).
When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?
As I'm old enough to have voted for Nixon, I'd say as soon as the Democrats control both Senate and Congress.
When will people finally wake the fuck up and say enough is enough?
Never. Cows don't revolt.
Will there ever be an end to the war on terra?
Will there ever be an end to the war on drugs? That started with Nixon (analgies analogies!)
Will we ever see a terror level below yellow?
Not so long as the President is yellow. In fact, the whole Federal Government seems to be full of cowards, wimpily cowering before the big bad Muslims.
Does anyone believe the bushit?
Unfortunately, yes. You only have to read Slashdot to see that... and these are supposedly nerds, supposedly intelligent. I wonder what they're talking about over at the People Magazine forums? Probably this, this or this.
It's pathetic. I should move to Amsterdam.
You're right. He's not a whistleblower. He's a hero and a true patriot.
Ten bucks on Mr. Klein soon to be sued by AT&T, and pursued by district attorney for thieft of AT&T company property (namely the said documents.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
Leakers go to the media.
Uh right. So, if you're a cop and you discover that the police chief and a bunch of your fellow officers are in cahoots with drug smugglers, you just go tell...who?
If you find out damning information about people who have the ability to have you killed (even if you don't think they'd do it) you have three basic choices:
Your distinction isn't between "wistleblower" and "leaker" it's between "dead sap" and "live whistleblower."
--MarkusQ
P.S. In any case, even if you do get it out in time that they don't gain anything by shutting you up, you can expect to get fired so they can dismiss you as a "disgruntled former employee," and, if you've really got the dirt on them, you may also get your very own swiftboating.
The most appropriate channel to begin discussion on government corruption is the media, because the people who are responsible for stopping abusive government are the people.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities to stop companies because it is the law's duty to deal with the problem.
Leakers go the press to stop government abuses because it is the electorate's duty to deal with the problem.
"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Whistleblowers are a type of leaker. It doesn't matter who they report to. What makes them a whistleblower is the reason for the leaking: Whisleblowers leak information in order to expose illegal or unethical activity being done by the organization they are a member of.
So yes, deep throat was a whistleblower, as is Mark Klein.
I'm with you on name-calling (it's fun but it doesn't exactly promote dialog), but please tell me how your use of hard core left leaner is not name-calling? And WTF is a hard core leaner, anyway? Don't moderates lean one way or the other, while the hard core guys are all the way out?
Also, grandparent supported his argument with a relevant example (follow the link), so it's not the case that he's got "no other option." Unlike... your response?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc...
Not only did he not have access to it, but he also stated: "The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room."
The NSA doesn't monitor communications businesses for fraud, hacking, etc. That's not their job. Their job is signals/intelligence collection and analysis. A room in a datacenter that's off-limits to everybody but people with NSA security clearences is basically screaming "I'm a massive phone/data tap".
The bush presidency is like a dam with a crack in it. At present, the crack is fairly small, but water is leaking out and the crack is widening. The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment? When will people finally wake the fuck up and say enough is enough? Will there ever be an end to the war on terra? Will we ever see a terror level below yellow? Does anyone believe the bushit?
Do you actually believe that the government would be any less power hungry if someone else was in power. They have gradually been taking more and more freedoms exponentially. Do you seriously think that the next president regardless if they are Republican or Democrat will give any of these freedoms back? Well, maybe superficially, but in whole, no.
Then why is AT&T's defense "We were forced to do it by the Government" instead of "We didn't do it"?
Note the inferences from internal documents that such rooms were built not just in San Francisco, but in Seattle and other cities.
Also note that this is literally vacuuming up all the message traffic which bounces thru all these locations, even if it's US to US.
Theoretically, they could then disregard traffic that is US to US, but the tendency among intel agencies is to always build it so that you can inspect the raw flow when you want to.
Another easy thing they could do is just "backup" the call logs from any of the switches, which record the keypress, routing, connect, and status of phone calls for any landline or cell phone - it's just a log file, easy to make a copy with a fairly inexpensive device patch. Or just run a cron job to do it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
In the same way that a trade secret that becomes public ceases to be protectable as a trade secret, I would have though that this would cease to merit any protections as it is self-evidently no longer secret, whatever the state may say.
So, on the basis that state secrets does NOT appear to be a valid piece of Common Law, and that there is no secret left to protect, I can see no justification for quashing this evidence. Furthermore, as the documents HAVE been published openly, AT&T have lost all rights to their claim of trade secrets, and so I can see no obvious justification of the evidence even being sealed. We already know what the bulk of it says, as it's online!
The argument over who is right and who is wrong is, in this case, largely academic. The tapping has already been done, the publication has already been done. All the damage either side could possibly suffer is all past-tense. What is present-tense is what arguments either side present to justify their actions, and what evidence they are permitted to present in support of their claims.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
But IF... IF this spying program is meant to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks, wouldn't it be better AS public knowledge?
Wouldn't the terrorists just say, "Crap, they know about it! Call it off."
When bin Laden finally realized that he was being tracked by the satellite phone he used to use, he simply stopped using it and reverted to writing things down on paper. Much slower, but also much more difficult to intercept. He certianly didn't just give up because he couldn't talk to them on the phone any more.
Committed terrorists will simply stop using high technology devices like cell phones, the internet, etc. to communicate with each other since it's been demonstrated that the government can and will intercept everything they possibly can. The terrorists will just go back to using snail-mail, word of mouth, etc. Again, it'll take longer but it'll also prove more secure. Unless, of course, the NSA then moves to have operatives put in every US Post Office to read every piece of mail that's sent in the country.
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
...
...
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course
Now where did i leave that sarcasm key
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This goes back to an argument my someone I know and I have had over this. She's mostly pro-Bush, I... voted for Badnarik because of Bush. I support law and order... real law and order. I think that national security is never a justification for attacking due process of law. Even if we have to have secret trials by jury because the evidence is so dangerous, I don't think things should be hidden from the courts.
Like a lot of Bush supporters, she cites the leaks of information as reasons to not take this to court, but I say just prosecute people who leak information that needs to be confidential and that the public really doesn't need to know about. However, national security is never grounds to hide from judicial review attacks on the Constitution. People who bring evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions need to be protected by the courts.
Something has to be done to protect these people. If I were governor, I would give him a state police protection detail and make it be known that any federal agent who tries to arrest him will be charged with felony kidnapping in a state court. The states need to stand up and protect their citizens. My state, VA, has an obligation to me to protect me from unconstitutional federal abuse because if the feds act outside of the enumerated powers, it's state jurisdiction and any federal coercion in that respect is criminal conduct. Federal agents who abuse, injur or kill people, especially outside of the Constitution's limits on their jurisdictions are criminals, not law enforcement agents and ought to be prosecuted by the the states accordingly.
I call you that because this strained definition of leaker VS whistleblower originates from the Bush administration trying to equate their leaks of a CIA agent's identity to that of any other innocuous information fed to the press; and at the same time remove the saintly aura of *Whistleblower* status from the hordes of disillusioned executive branch employees who've now gone public.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
got 'em dead to rights as I read it. now, if this was authorized under the telecom act, no issues. if not, the class-action lawsuit and the pending FCC investigation should bankrupt the long-haul companies that implemented the spytaps.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Call it a hunch but I believe that if not now, then definatly in a few years, words like torrent, mp3, and avi will work just as well as bomb or Jihad. Our government has been bought and paid for and today's terror monitoring is tomorrow's corporate sponsored public monitoring.
Mark Klein and all others who expose these attacks against American's civil liberties are true heros to the Republic. These neocon scumbugs know their days are number and will have to go all out on police state in order to continue against the American people, who are the REAL suspect and criminals behind 911, not some fantasy outfit called al Qaeda/make believe war on terror.
HOLY HELL DO YOU MEAN THAT ALL MY INTERNET TRAFFIC IS UNENCRYPTED AND CAN BE SEEN BY ANYONE ON THE INTERNET?
Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything.
Chances of this turning into some giant impeachment proceeding? Nil. Why? Because similar to the pen registers (which are also warrantless), there is no assumption of privacy on the internet. Everything sent in plaintext is plain to see. Now, should the NSA be required to get a warrant to break the encryption on encrypted data? Yes, there is an assumption of privacy. Can they log it without breaking it? Absolutely. Having your encrypted data in still encrypted format does not violate your privacy.
Dear lord, stop bitching and actually start thinking it through. You're telling me none of you have ever fired up ettercap or whatever at the office?
"If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11."
You pretend to be non-partisan, but this is the current partisan Republican party line. "Democrats do horrible things too, so don't complain when we do horrible things. Democrats in Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, so stop blaming us."
This is missing the entire point. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for the current evisceration of the liberties some of us still demand. Just like those Democrats who blame the Republicans, you are unable to see past your my-team your-team warfare to realize that the Republicans in power, just like the Democrats in power, are responsible for this.
When will you realize that your sacred Republican leaders of this vicious circus don't deserve defense just because the Democrats have helped them gain nigh-totalitarian control?
And of course, if they were sued over such a program, the Bush administration would immediately file a brief saying no evidence about it could be made public for national security reasons.
No, sorry... No one is bothering to say "this isn't true", they're saying "we can't let this come out because it will damage national security". To me, that's pretty much admitting the program exists and does what is alleged, probably more (which is why they're willing to fight so hard to keep the details secret).
This has been brewing since the initial wiretapping scandal. The reason the administration insisted so loudly that they didn't need to get FISA approval (even though it would have been easy) is because there's more going on here. They've got some sort of system set up that monitors all communications and data-mines the content for terrorist (and probably criminal) activity. They can't possibly get a warrant to examine every single phone call ever made, which is why they say they don't need a warrant.
However, I don't think they're doing it out of malice, or anything. Not yet, anyway. I think they probably are using it mostly for intelligence needs currently. But just as the Patriot Act is increasingly being used to try non-terrorist suspects, and the very terms "terrorist" and "weapons of mass destruction" are being re-defined in court, it won't be long until this data-mining is being used for everything the government wants to do.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Does anyone know if cell phone records are lumped in? I was considering a switch to Cingular. I may just wait and see how this plays out.
The worst ones are the fuckers that voted for him in the 2nd round, and now are all disappointed and disaproving.
WTF?
They couldn't see that the guy has no clue about terrorism, liberty and security until after all his ideas costs us thousands of lives, loss of rights, and loss of international credibility?
I actually heard people say they're glad about security checkpoints at stadiums and other family venues.
I lived in a communist country once, and I can tell you, in some respects this place is just as much of a big brother as the ex Yugoslavia.
And to even think that they chose 2 guys for Commander in Chief and VP who have never actively served in a war, and went as far out of their way as they could so as not to serve, over a decorated veteran. (In a time of war, no less.)
I'm proud to be an American, well at least I know I'm free...
Yeah, you guys keep singing that...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
There's a story called "Addressee Unkown" by Kathrine Kressmann Taylor that might portray a more realistic outcome rather a DDOS. You've gotta remember the NSA has a lot of hardware -- they are government.
In the story, two friends correspond: one who left nazi germany for the states and one who stayed. The one who stayed started justifying the nazis, which pissed off his buddy who was a Jew. For retaliation, he started writing back dropping Jewish references. The guy in Germany started freaking out asking him to stop because it was causing him to be investigated.
Instead, a letter eventually came back to the American undelivered and marked "Addressee Unknown".
I had a similar effect emailing my annoying brother in law who robbed me of my inheiritance. I used to pepper my messages to him in a similar manner. He's on the Do Not Fly Under Any Circumstances List. Coincidence?
Because they weren't legally required to do it. They were merely pressured to do it.
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.
The text above presumes that the congressional oversight committee for these programs has the power to actually do anything. This presumption is incorrect.
The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns? Ask someone outside if, hypothetically, some hypothetical NSA program could be improper? No way - that would put you in jail. Even after the programs are semi-public, these committee members are still prohibited from discussing the programs. Pelosi herself, in an NPR interview a few weeks back, expressed that she had wanted to speak out on the warrantless wiretap program from the very beginning, but was powerless to get external verification of her concerns, because doing so would reveal that the program existed.
Could the committee do something internally, by itself? Perhaps, were it so moved. But since the committee is heavily Republican, the likelihood of that happening is slim (though growing somewhat wider in a time where Republicans seem to want to portray themselves as standing independent of the president, at least until after Nov 2006. But I digress).
That's why you don't see anyone from the "oversight" committee saying anything. Because the oversight committee is just for show, actually having no real power of oversight. Real oversight would allow for accountability, and no one can be held accountable for programs that no one is allowed to talk to anyone about.
Thank god for whistleblowers.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
In short, go soak your head.
illegitimii non ingravare
Whether they were briefed on the "exact" programs or not is not clear; apparently, Pelosi was briefed on something related to the program that came to light months ago, and objected to it when she was briefed on it. OTOH, since the program that has recently come to light is not the same one that was revealed months ago, its not at all clear who was briefed on what, though in order to provide political cover, the administration has released lists purporting to account the number of times particular members received some briefing relating to the NSA surveillance programs.
But the number of briefings isn't the issue, even when you restrict it to whether Congress was informed. The completeness and accuracy of the briefings is the issue.
Based on the runup to the Iraq War and essentially all other actions undertaken by congressional democrats in the last four years, I disagree with your assessment of the idea that Nancy Pelosi is an adversiary of George W. Bush.
the actual-in-the-know political opposition
I furthermore disagree with your claim that there exists an "actual in-the-know political opposition".
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing
I furthermore disagree with your dual implications here that
Personally I think top-ranking congressional democrats are just as much potential casualties of the "political damage" that this breach makes possible, as the White House is. The toadyism in Congress crosses party lines, and I think congressional democrats such as Ms. Pelosi need very badly to keep their base from finding out exactly how badly they have been sold out.
The famous hacker Kevin Poulsen in the book "The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen" discovered computers in secret rooms in AT&T that could tap any phone in America.. and this was in the early 90's. They were tapping mafia guys.... but without a court order... so AT&T's been illegally tapping phones at least since then.
>Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
>Leakers go to the media.
In which category would you place the action of filing evidence in a court of law?
The EFF sued ATT over eavesdropping in January. Mark Klein came forward with his evidence in April and as near as I can tell (press acounts *are* unclear) offered it to the EFF to be entered into evidence before the court.
>the authorities (police, management, congress, etc)
I, and many others through US history, would argue that the voters belong on that list. The voters are tasked with evaluating the performance of elected officials and are authorized to fire them for poor performance, endangerment, or simple disagreement. The media convey information to voters. Going to the media means going to the voters.
How's it effective? He and other members of al Queada have demonstrated extreme patience when planning terrorist attacks. Avoiding the use of phones, the internet, etc. to communicate certianly hasn't stopped them. Or do you consider simply delaying attacks as "effective"?
This is exactly my argument for rolling back the police state.
Since denying US citizens rights to privacy, free speech, free assembly, and a free press will only slow terrorist groups like al Queda down slightly, if at all, they are ineffective, and our rights should be restored. Won't happen, but should happen.
Regards,
Ross
look at the spam that makes it through to your inbox - filters can be circumvented. Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium?? They are going to bust backseat "shoe bombers" and obvious dumbasses like Zacharias Moussouai at best... This is going to have zero effect on catching terrorists and huge potenetial for political abuses...
"But this one goes to 11!"
Just a note to our current administration - Orwell did not intend 1984 to be a how-to.
Not only that, they aren't allowed to gather intelligence on American citizens. Only the fbi can.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
This is a large leap in logic in the article. Having a NSA security clearance does not mean that someone works for the NSA. He stated: "The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room." He assumed that this meant the people worked for the NSA. Having an NSA security clearance does not mean that someone works for the NSA (did I already say that). Having a security clearance means that the person was checked out by the NSA and found not to be security a risk. These background checks general consists of not being heavily in debt, not having been convicted of a felony, not working for a foreign government, etc. Running a though background check on people who who have access to this room and software may be good idea.
"UK common law comes from the Magna Carta"
Hmm, that's funny, you seem to be completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
"In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Charta
"Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum, was an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta is the most significant early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today."
So, even though common law existed before the Magna Carta, it was...based...on...the...Magna Carta...?
This from the Risks forum, back in 1991:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2.1
From the article:
"There has been plenty of discussion about SB266 requiring all communication equipment to provide the plaintext to the government on demand. Well, I've decided if they want plaintext, give them plaintext. I've written a program that will convert any file into strings from a context-free grammar. The bits are recovered by parsing. To test it's viability, I created two grammars and a program to do the work."
"The first converts any file into the radio commentary of a baseball game between two teams, The Blogs and the Whappers. Could something as American as baseball be hiding something?..." A very interesting read.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
or for Atheists or poor people.
Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium??
Yep, exactly right, which is why it's bullshit that this is about terrorism. This is about spying on Americans. They want to know who is leaking things like Abu Ghraib photos, or info about the torture camps in Eastern Europe.
In the very fine print. Article I, section five: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules of the House of Representatives (omitting crossreferences, emphasis added):
I don't know where the GP post got two states from; as far as I can see, it only takes one state legislature filing charges to start a bill of impeachment. Not that such means the House has to pass the bill if the charges show up; and the Senate doesn't get (legally) involved unless the House passes the bill. But charges sent by a state legislature are enough to start the process. Of course, a lot of bills of impeachment have been introduced in our history; most have been killed quickly, one was aborted by a resignation, and two went to trial in the Senate. It's not until either of the latter looks likely that things get interesting.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Funny thing about Congress... certain members have been kept up to date on these operations since they were first created and yet several of them (most notably Nancy Pelosi) have expressed their outrage about finding out about these programs despite the fact that many knew since late 2001!
That's funny, are you under the impression that it would have been legal for Pelosi to express knowledge, let alone outrage, regarding this program before it was disclosed publically? The congressional committies are effectivly useless in this regard because it would be a violation of national security for them to exercise any actual oversight.
Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course ...
Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal which climaxed with the the Watergate tapes, uncovered by Mssrs. Woodward and Bernstein.
But he wasn't impeached. He would have been, of course; articles of impeachment were already being planned. However, he wasn't, so the last President to "fall for this" would have to be Andrew Johnson.
More importantly, Nixon's troubles had very little to do with his role in Vietnam. The country had been unhappy about Vietnam, and they were unhappy with the incident at Kent State (which led to the CSN song about "four dead in Ohio"), but the nation didn't blame Nixon for the war per se.
For one thing, our involvement in Vietnam ramped up under Kennedy and Johnson. For another, Nixon was the one who brought the troops home. Here's a timeline for ya: here.
Nixon did make a couple of unpopular Vietnam decisions, such as the Cambodia and Laos actions, but by '74 when he resigned, the nation understood that the troops were coming home.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Absolutely. But would you or the American people vote to allow the NSA to tap your phones to fight tax fraud? Hopefully not. Terrorism, though, carries an emotional weight that many people seem unable to look beyond. Those who can look beyond it realize that these measures aren't necessary, and that giving up freedom isn't necessary either.
So my point is that the system is going to be used for investigating things other than terrorism, and we as citizens should decide whether we want that to happen on its own merits, not because the spectre of "terrorism" has been raised.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Consider a career change. For a law student, you don't know much about the law.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
If sufficiently concerned over the issue, raise the issue on the floor of the house in question, before the entire house in secret session. While there are potentially serious repercussions to such a move, up to censure or expulsion from that house (subject to the internal rules), that's the most that can happen. Congresscritters have a constitutional immunity from prosecution by any other body for anything they say there. (Article I, section 6: "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place".)
If done in the Senate, one need merely find an amenable party member willing to trustingly second a Rule 21 motion to raise the issue with some deference to secrecy, which may help prevent expulsion. In the House of Representatives, secret sessions are governed by Rule XVII, clause 9, and it looks like you don't even need a second to close the House. Technically, I suppose a sufficiently pissed member need not even close their house to secret session before starting the debate... but that likely would make the consequences under internal rules much more serious.
Of course, while outright expulsion would be unlikely for a closed session debate (takes too many votes, and is too likely to make an instant political martyr), there's a real risk of losing the committee seat, along with any others held; it's also not exactly the sort of thing that engenders future interbranch co-operation, or comprehensive briefings to the oversight committee. The current White House would throw a howling excretory tantrum. However, I would hope that my elected officials would know when to start making a stink. This needed a stink a long time ago (or, less preferably, a change in the law before the laws got broken).
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.