Slashdot Mirror
House Panel Approves Electronic Surveillance Bill
narramissic writes "A U.S. House of Representatives Committee has approved the Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, a controversial bill that would broaden the U.S. government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. residents by making it easier for federal law enforcement officials to get court-issued warrants. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month." From the article: "Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism. The bill will provide the U.S. intelligence agencies 'greater agility and flexibility as they try to thwart our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies,' Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month. The committee's action comes after U.S. President George Bush called on Congress to approve a controversial electronic surveillance program conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). "
One thing I do know is that this will allow my government to build a case against me with no warrant, probable cause or charges filed and documented against me. There could be a dossier (digital or hard copy) somewhere in the government's system with my name on it even though I haven't done anything wrong. Worse, the same could be said about every single American.
You can call me a crazed conspiracy theorist and you can call me a tin foil hat-ist but you can't deny it will be it will be a possibility for even you if you live in the United States.
Under the guise of "modernization," this bill will only add to the decline of my country. We sure aren't as "modernized" as Orwell's 1984 so I guess we're 22 years behind and we better get on it -- and who better than the Republicans to lead us there?
For the love of your country, write your representative in the house about how you feel on this issue. Please. Do it by hand with your signature and address on the letter. Physically mail it to them. Take the time to do this. Make sure you are heard about the things that matter to you. Make your concern known to those who represent you. If you spend a lot of time writing it, send it to your local newspaper also as a possible editorial. I doubt I'm alone on my concerns.
My work here is dung.
"to get court-issued warrants"
Why bother when the non-court-issued ones are readily available?
...should be members of the House panel. Perhaps if they were the subjects of the electronic spying they were authorizing, they might think twice. Still, this is the House Judiciary Committee, not the full House or Senate, so there's still time to write your Congressman and tell him/her that if they vote for this, you'll help hand them a one-way ticket to unemployment.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The problem is, what senator is going to openly disapprove of a bill that "Protects us against Terrorists"? You know the spin that will be put on this, whoever's in power.
Argh.
One really great thing about being the President is that if you find yourself doing something illegal, all you have to do is tell congress to make it legal, and then continue doing it. Gosh, I wish I could do that!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~ Benjamin Franklin
-1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
Intelligence is the first means to have best defense in the war on terror. It is powerful way to keep any country safe. Excesses are best prevented by when intelligence activities are operated within a framework that is controlled...This Bill would modernize and simplify the process of getting a FISA warrant so that they can focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans, it is indeed a vital step!
We put ourselves in the greatest national debt in the history of the nation for fear of terrorism.
We shred our own basic Constitutional rights for fear of terrorism.
We blugeon our critics for being weak on terrorism.
We start a war with a country out of fear of terrorism and place our troops on a sacrificial altar.
Our administration runs on campaigns reminding us to be scared of terrorism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we lost the War of Terror already.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
I think pretty much any law that claims to be about [insert fear mongering item here] and isn't specifically limited (in the text of the law) to [fear mongering item] should be considered Flamebait.
"The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act,
The bill,
90 days without a court order after a terrorist attack?
It passed the committee 20-16 on a party line vote.
Fuck the Republicans on this one.
They've forgotten the reason we had those laws in the first place.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hmmm... Can you spot a pattern here? What's next? The coronation of George W. Bush as the emperor-for-life of the United States? What about the return of public flogging and/or public execution of people who dissent with our beloved Emperor?
And, remember, people: We have always been at war with Oceania and its Islamofascists. Ignorance is Strength! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Long Live the Great Emperor!
In other words (and this is coming from someone who loves the USA): what the fsck are you people waiting for??? Get rid of that chimp already!!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Sort of. Previously, spying could start and they would need to get a warrant before the deadline.
With this one, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for a warrant at all (as long as you don't exceed 90 days).
The problem Bush and Co had was that they weren't even bothering with the retroactive warrants. So now it looks like the law is being re-written to coincide with Bush and Co's practices.
Warrantless spying on US citizens.
Wouldn't help, everything is classified as terrorism anyway. Dealing drugs is terrorism with chemical weapons, pirating music is financial terrorism directed at our corporations, etc.
I understand wanting laws to have scope and restriction, but making that restriction "terrorism" today would not really restrict it in any way.
Finkployd
Laws like this, ladies and gentlemen, are the true cost of terrorism. Yes, the terrorists did manage to kill 0.002 % of Americans 5 years ago, but the resulting fear and paranoia has led us to a state where everyone is a suspected terrorist and even innocent people are being tortured in the name of the "War on Terror". Far more Americans are affected by the knee-jerk reaction of Congress to 9/11 than by the actual attack itself.
On September 11, 2001, the terrorists took away more than just the lives of 4000 people. They managed to steal our liberties as well. We can't properly consider the impact of 9/11 without also considering the fact that it provided a catalyst for the removal of our Constitutional rights.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I know you are being funny but there are a lot of people who honestly believe this. They believe strongly that GWB needs these powers (along with torture) to fight terrorism. They believe that he is doing a great job at it and these expanded powers just for him keep us all safe.
I'm not going to get into whether or not that is true, but it demonstrates some serious short-sightedness. What happens when Hillary Clinton gets into power, and inherits all of these orwellian powers? Do those same "Bill O'Reilly"-lovin people think she will be just as honerable, trustworthy, and uncorrupt as they believe Bush to be? Granting a president nearly unlimited power because you believe he himself will not abuse it is silly at best. The president is not a person, it is a position, and that position changes at least every 8 years.
I'm waiting to hear a different tune sung when all of these powers are turned against tracking down "gun-owners" as the next step in the war on terror (when fought by someone on the far left).
Finkployd
9/11 killed less than half the number of people who are killed every day on our highways and streets. This act destroyed a few buildings...but not as much damage as what happened to New Orleans when Katrina hit.
But hey...improving auto safety or levees doesn't allow for as much of a power grab does it?
Blar.
Terrorism has 2 functions.
1) Obviously to spread terror.
2) To create distrust of the exisitng government and authorities. By creating an extreme reaction by the exisitng authorities, the populance begins to first distrust and then works to actively undermine the exisitng authorities. This is what is happening in the US right now. Poeple are begining to distrust the governement and its motives.
The terorists are winning as long as this happens.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
But what if the judge is a wacko leftie who impedes the investigation? Or worse, what if he is a terrorist sympathiser himself? Quite simply, Bush does not trust ANYONE (congress, the courts, certainly not us) with the war on terror. Any information can be used by the terrorists so it must all be classified and kept secret at all costs. This is why warrants must be bypassed, lawsuits against the NSA, AT&T, et al must be stopped, and accused must not hear the evidence against them.
The rallying cry on the Right is that the president's most important job is to keep us safe, and he must be able to do anything necessary to do that job.
The question that no Bush supporter has been able to answer in regards to this?
"What happens when Hillary Clinton or someone more left gets into power and inherits all of these unlimited powers? What happens when they declare gun owners to be terrorists and bring to bear the full power of the electronic suveriliance and secrets court and warrants against them?" What happens when the President is no long someone you believe to be totally trustworthy and honerable, but corrupt and evil, and now armed with the unlimited power you gave not to Bush, but to the periodically changing position of the President?"
I've seen several people's eyes glaze over in a "oh my god I never thought of that" moment when asked this question.
Finkployd
Seems like that would be pretty trivial to do; you could just establish a SSH tunnel and then pipe /dev/random to it, and route it to /dev/null on the receiving end.
A more intelligent thing to do -- and perhaps this is already done, I've never investigated it -- would be to configure a VLAN or VPN so that it sends a certain amount of traffic at all times. If there's not enough 'real' traffic to meet a certain minimum, then it just pads with random garbage that gets discarded at the remote end.
Such a thing would be the bandwidth equivalent of a leaky faucet, though; I'd imagine that if you weren't careful and you pay per GB, you could be in for a shock when you get your bill at the end of the month.
There are systems which are designed to defeat traffic analysis by padding and sending dummy messages -- the mixmaster mail-relay system, for instance, does this. I'm not sure if mixmaster is still alive or not, but now might be a really good time to resuscitate it, if it has died.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Did I suggest we surrender or run away? No, I suggest an alternative more condusive to listening and thinking than burning and shooting.
Also you misunderstood me, I didn't say "everyone" as in individuals, I said "other countries" specifically the ones we have exerted influence over in order to benefit our own country or economy. I'm not concerned about respecting Osama Bin Laden. Hollowing out countries where he has been in the past in an effort to find him does concern me, however. I feel it leaves long lasting detrimental effects on the populace living there and only creates more anti-American sentiment. We should be fighting a war of words and asking for help from other countries, not blowing up what we want and demanding things. We make our allies look like puppets to the rest of the world and say things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." Stupid.
My work here is dung.
I don't really understand this. US politicians are frightened of opposing bills in cease their opposition at the next elections starts saying 'Candidate X voted against the think-of-the-children act!' Surely this can work both ways. Why doesn't anyone run campaigns saying 'Candidate X voted for 20 bills that restrict individual freedom in the last session?'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Some fights are unavoidable, unless you would rather surrender or run away. The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.
:-)
Allow me to disagree on that. In order to end with terrorism on your country, you have to get to the root of the problem. What is it?, why are the people of the middle east so angered against your country/government/people?
Is it because they hate your "way of living"/culture? (as your government wants to make you believe). I really doubt it. See, I am from the poor country which sits at the south of yours (I am assuming you are from USA). I am from Mexico. One of the things that bothers me (a bit, as I run on the same tunnel a lot of times) is how we (Mexicans) love to imitate the American lifestyle. Hell, you just have to see the spark in the eyes of some Asian guys wen they ask me if I have been to America. America is cool for other people.
So, it is not your culture as the culture in my country is trying *so hard* to be like yours.
Then, what could it be?, what could conutries like Mexico, France, Canada (not sure about them), Japan, Brazil, Chile have been doing to avoid these terrorism attacks, hey, I guess, no.. I am positively SURE that the security systems in my country does not compare to the super technological security here in UK or in the USA.
My country cant afford that, neither Chile or Brazil can do it.
So, what I can tell you is that none of your gadgets/law-bills will help.
It is my view that what you [your government of course] should do to avoid being "terrorized" is to stop puttin gtheir noses everywhere. Leave other countries alone. Spain learnt the hard way, but HEY THEY LEARNT!!!.
It seems UK and USA government hasnt learnt (because they dont want to I guess).
btw, as one sig I read said, dont mod me down just because you dont agree with my opinions
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yet all we hear about from our corrupt politicians is that the boogeyman Osama and Al Quaeda is coming to get us. Fear! Fear! Fear! I lived in the inner-city for awhile. I absolutely guarantee you that those people living there could care less about Osama or Al Quaeda or Emmanuel Goldstein. The real threat to their lives, to their children's lives 24/7 is the gang problem. Those people truly live in fear.
However, what do our despicable policians do? Do they order the police and national guard to round up all gang members and get them off of our streets? No. They want to grant amnesty to the illegals! (I would say the majority of gang members are illegals or children of illegals.) And what happens when an individual police force tries to get tough on gangs? Civil lawsuits! The police "violated" these murderers', rapists', drug-dealers', and illegals' "rights."
So what do our politicians do? Why they enact laws that are meant to monitor, arrest, and imprison... we, the people!
I do not live in fear of "terrorists." I live in fear of my own government.
Am I mistaken, but aren't you still guilty of a crime you commit today, even if your actions are legalized next year?
In other words, we have no Ex Post Facto laws. You can't have something made illegal retroactively into the past. If congress passes a law tomorrow making it illegal to use the internet, we aren't breaking the law for using the internet today.
Similarly, can you retroactively make something legal? If the president is breaking the law today, and his actions are made legal tomorrow, isn't he still guilty of breaking the law?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
American politicians are TERRIFIED right now of the abuse and character assassination that is going on in the mass media, and the massive network of lobbying organizations, think tanks, consulting groups, pundits and commentors, posing as "real news". From a media perspective, it's profitable, and it's good business. Give us dirty laundry. And Karl Rove and his minions are all too happy to dish it out.
If you think they're not above punishing disloyalty in their own ranks, just take a look at how they slimed McCain in 2000 in the SC primary.
The terror tactics of Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, use bombs. The terror tactics of the modern Republican machine uses Information Warfare. Some people call Karl Rove an evil genius - but he's just exploiting the market-driven and overconsolidated corporate media in the US. They make big money, and they cycle it all back through the propaganda system through folks like American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundataion, Aspen Group, Center for American Progress, Focus on the Family, etc. (this is the "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton was talking about. Yes, Bill really DID get a blowjob, yes, he really did lie, by a plain-folks definition of the word, and yes, there really was a vast right wing conspiracy that was out to get him.)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
it's fleece was white as snow.
I know a lot of you Americans have only heard the lines "Remember, remember, the 5th of November" from V for Vendetta and think it's very clever to quote it, but it sounds really dumb to anyone from the UK - you're quoting a nursery rhyme.
Every statement we make could be twisted to make us have something to hide. Trust me, there is something in your life that could be misconstrued by someone to cause you harm. Are you religious? Are you not religious? Do you spank your children? Do you smoke? Do you eat fast food more than once a week? Have you ever looked at pornography? Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Have you ever mentioned cheating on your spouse in a joking manner? Have you ever missed a payment for a credit card? Would you be comfortable with all of this information being available to your boss, your government, you student's teachers, CPS? Because remember, they don't have to tell you what the information is or where it came from or where it's being used. This just says they can use it after a terrorist attack. To what ends we don't know.
And we are hardly in a dangerous position here. Your daily commute is far more dangerous to you than terrorists. It's still probably more dangerous statistically even than living in Iraq. But I don't see anyone calling for automated driving systems to keep us from killing each other on the roads.
And those wanting to blame Republicans, Bush, the Devil, et al. are just plain wrong. WE handed over our freedoms and liberty in the name of security and protection from the "terrorists." The cruel irony is that Franklin warned us us centuries ago that trading one for the other results in having neither. At least I got to live somewhat free for a few of decades.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
You know, I'd like to vote for a lawremover, not a lawmaker. Ever think someone will win running on that platform? "I'm so-and-so and I'm running as an independent to be a Washington lawremover. Vote for me and I'll reduce the size of government by getting rid of all of these unconstitutional government programs and alphabet agencies." We can dream, can't we?
As you long as you feel safe messing with them, we, in fact, do not have a problem.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You have completely ignored the implications of the other posters, that this sort of legislation is unnecessary given the tools that we already have, and have attempted to switch the argument around to once again say that we cannot prosecute or capture terrorists without this bill. No one is saying that we should hold peace talks with al-Qaida, no one except for strawmen erected in the yards of Republican Congressmen to be smacked around as necessary. Don't ask to not be flamed if you're throwing around flamebait.
I'm not going to answer these trollish questions because they are foregone conclusions. If you want to make America "safer," don't continue loading us up with these bullshit bills that provide just as much pass to investigate people who are not al-Qaida suspects. Instead, foot the bill to intelligence agencies to increase the number of agents in the field, increase communcation with foreign relations. What we need right now is not a stronger net with barbs and poison - what we need are more nets. This bill does nothing to actually increase enforcement of policy - it only increases policy.
The answer to your last question, which many progressives have provided and many Democrats agree with, is that we need to begin phasing out military operations in Iraq so that we can shift funds to intelligence agencies, bring our National Guard troops back to home grounds so that they can be ready to serve as first-responders for attacks that slip through our intelligence webs, and to begin preparing for possible engagements with Iran. As long as we continue blowing as much money as possible on the Iraqi occupation, then we're going to continue to hamper ourselves in the real goal, which is protecting American soil from terrorists. No, not the "war against terrorism," but the "protection against terrorism," which involves proactive intelligence and military action based on that intelligence. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read any further into your questioning.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
The important difference here that the law is being re-written retroactively to cover violations already committed.
Currently, W Bush and Cheney are essentially convicted felons, which is enough grounds to fasttrack their impeachment come November (if the Democrats take Congress, which is not impossible).
Once Bush and Cheney are impeached, Pelosi (as a Speaker), becomes an acting President (and gets the PATRIOT and other 'powers').
And that is why the Republicans desperately need to make what Bush did legal.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
have we been a democracy?
Why people like you terrorize themselves into believing that we need to give up what makes America America escapes me.
You know, it would make us a lot safer if we rounded up all the Muslims (no, better make it everyone who looks remotely middle eastern) and put them in "internment camps." If the TSA started handcuffing everyone who flies to their seat, we wouldn't need to worry about anyone hijacking a plane ever again. I'm sure officials could catch at least a few terrorists if they were allowed to search anyone they found suspicious. There's even a chance that they might be able to beat some names out of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. I'm pretty sure that we'd catch a few more terrorists (or at least people who hate America) if the FBI were to round up everyone who ever entered "al quaeda" into Google. Perhaps the NSA should preemptively wiretap everyone who requests http://www.aljazeera.com? Yet none of these things have been seriously proposed, except the torture one (because torture is no longer a debasement of everything America holds dear if they're terrorists). Care to think why?
You would have hated the Founding Fathers for the laws they wrote. You think they didn't know that the 2nd Amendment would make the police's job harder? You think they didn't know that the 4th would seriously impede legitimate investigations? That the 5th gave conspirators a free hand to stonewall investigations? That the First Amendment, giving anyone the right to say whatever they wanted (except in condition of causing immediate danger), would let all manner of sickos and hatemongers spew their filth without fear of reprisal?
Do you want to know why they would write such laws, which the Bush administration would no doubt (correctly) denounce because they "impede legitimate investigations" if they were proposed today? Exactly BECAUSE the Bush administration, or the Clinton administration, or the Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or Hoover or Grant administrations would denounce such gaurantees in the name of efficiency and convenience. The Founders KNEW that power breeds corruption, and they knew exactly where the powers unequivocally denied to the government in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights would lead on very, very short order because they'd just overthrown such a government. They intentionally hog-tied the Federal Government because they knew where anything else would lead, and they knew how many people died getting back their rights the first time.
And here you are, cheering the Bush administration as as they try to renounce the very laws that have assured historically unprecedented freedom for hundreds of millions of people for centuries in the name of expediency. In the words of Samuel Adams, "We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
At this point, I finish with a snide comment about the Emergency Clause in the Soviet constitution. You may now proceed to rationalize wholesale attacks on the Bill of Rights in the name of expediency to prevent your worldview from imploding, certain that Stalin will renounce his powers as soon as The Emergency is passed.