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). "

Comments

The Rise & Fall of My Country

[eldavojohn]

Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism.

Maybe it will. Maybe it will ensure that I never have to worry about a terrorist inside my country ever again. Maybe. Then again, maybe it won't. Maybe they'll just become better at using encryption. Who knows? I don't think you can really prove that it will help you at all. There is no "silver bullet" to stop terrorism. Stop claiming there is. Our best bet to end terrorism is making it a world wide effort and treating other countries with respect -- the same way our country would like to be treated.

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.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Exp315]

It's truly terrifying to see this happen in my lifetime. I grew up reading SF stories about bleak future worlds in the "1984" vein, but it was always difficult to understand how any people who loved freedom and democracy could let those worlds come about. Who would have believed that all it took was 19 nut cases acting together? Osama bin Laden must be ROFL wherever he is that he was able to destroy the ideals of the United State of America that took centuries to build so easily.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[mooingyak]

Not that the other guy would have done all that much differently, but at least he'd have to fight with his enemies in the Congress to get anything done.

I think the best part of Clinton's presidency was that for most of it we had a Democrat for president with a Republican dominated Congress that hated him. The Lewinsky stuff kept all of them busy from doing real damage. I've always felt gridlock makes for good government, and I look forward to having it again in November.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Mister Whirly]

"I want an application that generates a constant and never-ending stream of encrypted nonsense communications"

They have that already - it's called the Fox Network.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[DragonWriter]

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have some power similar to this? where they could obtain a court order retroactively?

Somewhat. But this is a vast expansion.

does this just extend their time limit on it?

No. It does, as a minor provision, extend the time limit (there have been characterizations that it extends the current 72-hour limit for foreign intelligence surveillance while seeking a warrant to 90 days—this is false. It extends that limit only to 120 hours (from 3 days to 5 days.) The 90-day limit is something completely different, see below.)

But it does a lot more, including (and this is not an exhaustive list):

It expands the definition of an "agent of a foreign power" to include not only actual agents of foreign powers, but also any person "reasonably expected to transmit or receive foreign intelligence information".

It also narrows the scope of the limitations on government power in FISA: currently, it is unlawful to conduct surveillance except under its rules against any US person who is within the United States. EMSA would make it only illegal if those conducting the surveillance reasonably believe the subject is within the United States. So if they don't believe you are in the United States when they target you, or if that belief is unreasonable, their action is not prohibited by the law any more.

EMSA would also further narrow the scope of the limitations on government surveillance power in FISA by defining "surveillance" that it restricts to only include the acquisition of the content of communications; under current law that is included, but so is the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device for "monitoring to acquire information" of any kind. As a concrete example of the effect, a camera planted inside a residence or other private area to see what went on and who was present at various times would probably not capture the "content of communication", and would be entirely unregulated under the changes proposed in EMSA, but is restricted under the current law.

It also entirely eliminates (not merely extends the timeline) the rule that, without a court order having been obtained, communications deliberately or incidentally captured of a US person cannot be retained, disseminated, etc., beyond a 72-hour period.

It expands the scope of surveillance that requires no warrant (retroactive or otherwise) to include not only surveillance of communications exclusively between foreign powers (including their agents), but to communication of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and strikes the limitation that such warrantless surveillance may only be used when "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party", (and, remember from above, it expands the definition of "agent of a foreign power" to include people who are expected to send or receive foreign intelligence information, whether or not they are in fact agents of foreign powers; as one example of the impact of the effect of these two provisions together, since reporters covering foreign affairs beats can be "reasonably expected" to sometimes receive or send "foreign intelligence information", that means that, under EMSA, any communication of any such reporter with any other person for any purpose can be monitored without any restriction of any kind.)

It expands the ability of the government to order private parties to assist it in performing surveillance: this is curerntly restricted only to communications common carriers, and would be expanded to "any person with authorized access to electronic communications or equipment used to transmit or store electronic communications".

It deletes the requirement that warrant applications for surveillance include "a d

Re:Interesting but...

[HugePedlar]

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.

come on guys

[einolu]

its about time we all stop worrying, havent the last couple of years proven that the republicans know what they are doing?

Terrorism has already won

[DragonPup]

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.

Re:I mod this Bill...

[TubeSteak]

I'm going to quote an old post from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

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, ..., would also allow federal law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. residents for up to 90 days without a court order in the period after a terrorist attack. The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation Wednesday by a 20-16 vote, with all committee Democrats present voting against the bill.

The bill, ..., would reduce the amount of information required from federal agents applying for a wiretapping warrant from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

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.

The true cost of terrorism

[gillbates]

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.

Disculpame pero no es cierto

[xtracto]

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 :-)

Gangs are the major TERRORIST threat

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Maybe it will ensure that I never have to worry about a terrorist inside my country ever again.

What a lot of people seem to overlook is that our gang problem in the US is huge. For example, the MS-13 gang is spread out across the US and is made up of former South American guerrilla soldiers. Go into any inner-city: Los Angeles, Chicago, Detriot, etc. and the people there live in fear on a daily basis from the gang warfare. Drive-by shootings, rapes, murders, etc. Gang violence has only increased in the past several years.

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.