House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping

inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"

Comments

Re:Republicans!

[Mongoose Disciple]

Both parties are full of shit. Although it appears that Republicans are simply more full of shit than Democrats at the moment. Don't confuse me with a Democrat, it's just much easier to criticize a party when it owns all three branches of the government.

Amen to that. The question is, how do we take our country back from these yahoos?

I mean, I'm all for voting out the particular yahoos who decided this was a good idea and are telling me the government needs to spy on me without due process for my own safety. No question about that. But does that really effect long-term change in government and how it does things?

Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away. Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?

I love this country, but it kills me to see where it's going and what it's doing. There's got to be a way to fix it, but I don't know what that would be.

Suggestion

[truthsearch]

Call your representative in the House (or check their web site) and find out how he/she voted. If s/he voted for the bill make sure to vote for another candidate if the seat is up for election in Nov.

Normally I wouldn't say to vote for or against a candidate based on only one issue. But this bill is unconstitutional and anyone who voted for it is disregarding our rights and the constitution itself and is therefore unfit as a representative. Please vote accordingly.

that old gag

[BitterAndDrunk]

As has been said over and over and over - warrants could already be gotten retroactively, and most of the 4th amendment restrictions have already been broadened over the last 4 decades. If the gov't wants to tap someone, they can already.

But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.

What I've Done

[eldavojohn]

So what are you going to do?

What I've already done is sent a hand written and signed letter addressed to my representatives in congress, my representative in the house, my president and my local paper (addressed to my fellow citizens).

I did that because it's what I'm supposed to do. This is how it's supposed to work. I feel a bit more satisfied but I still fear for my country. I urge each and everyone of you who are American citizens to do the same, whether you're for or against this bill.

Which one do I have the most faith in? My fellow citizens.

The rest could be hit by a bus and I wouldn't really care.

Re:What I've Done

[sgt_doom]

Sorry to have to explain this to you - but due to the biowarfare protection procedures in place, any handwritten notes to congress normally take about a month and a half. With their very short memories...

Re:Republicans!

[TubeSteak]

Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?

YOU run for office. Or pressure someone whose opinions & character you respect into running.

Before doing that, I suggest you go talk to the nearest rookie representative. You will discover that being a Congress Critter is not so easy.

Actually it is somewhat soul destroying. Idealism burns out very quickly once you figure out that you can't change anything without compromising.

Needless to say, I've talked with a rookie Congressman and have no urge to go into politics.

Why do you think that the Republicans, who are in the majority, are still complelled to call the Democrats "defeatocrats," "obstructionists," or "the party of cut and run"? Hint: it creates a situation where it is easier to force a favorable (R) compromise

Now we just counter with extra-strong encryption.

[hacker]

Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.

So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil Disobedience.

Use TrueCrypt with the AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI encryption for those partitions.

For phones, you could look into encryption handsets or telephone scramblers. There's this one too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.

Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.

With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy, Tor and i2p and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.

Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.

Now its OUR turn.

You take from us, we take back.

Re:Republicans!

[catalina]

Either you're willing to "throw your vote away" and show people that they can too- or you'll need to resort to stronger measures. I don't at all advocate the latter, but it's really your only option if you're not going to vote in the manner your conscience tells you to.

I would suggest that a better way to throw your vote away is to register for the incumbent party, make a point voting in the primaries. Far too many folks still think of a primary as a non-event, and yet complain that they don't have a good choice come the election.

You can still vote 3rd party in the final, even though you're registered as R or D.

And until things get shaken up at the primary level, not much else is likely to change (except more of that worthless piece paper being shredded in the rush to prove how patriotic congress is)

Okay with Wiretapping

[barik]

I'm okay with all of this wiretapping on one condition -- every politician is subject to wiretapping 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they expect us to give up our privacy rights, I expect our politicians to give up the same -- and slightly more, since by accepting the role of a public figure they accept a certain responsibility for both their public and private actions.

On top of this, when obtaining a valid warrant, a private citizen has the right to obtain, inspect, and dissemenate all of these conversations. And on top of this, government entities (FBI, CIA, auditing firms) have the right to these conversations at any time without a warrant, and may, at their discretion release any of this information to the public.

It goes both way. Have a nice day.

Republicans? No Fascists.

[Anonymous Coward]

This stuff frightens me. It is so reminisent of the Brown shirts of Germany and Black shirts of Italy in pre-WW2 that I fear that we are going to see a total loss if civil rights.

Voting the rascals out only gives you a new set of rascals any more. And they are setting things up so that you can no longer take to the streets. This is an example of "death by 1000 cuts", only it's our civil liberties that they are cutting.

Go ahead, mark me as a troll or ignore me. But if you don't stand up now, tomorrow will be too late.

Re:Republicans? No Fascists.

[whathappenedtomonday]

I share your worries. Those who don't might want to consider this:

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fas

Re:Campaing finance reform + voting reform

[crazyeddie740]

Jeppe Salvesen said, "[A needed reform is c]ampaign finance, because the money dependency in politics means those with money get to dictate/influence policy. After all, the politicians feel more accountable to the donors than they do to the public. With enough money, the politicians can just buy the necessary amount of advertising - and they will get that money if donors know the representative delivers the votes & influence in Congress the donors' agenda requires."

Here's a simple reform - get rid of political ads on TV. It's long been established that broadcast media isn't as protected as print or speech - hence the lack of boobies on TV. The vast majority (or at least plurality) of campaigning budgets goes to TV ads. Most campaign finance reform goes after the supply - limiting how much donors can donate. That, to me, is a recipe for corrupt end runs around the law. This reform, on the other hand, would go after the demand side. Donors could give as much as they want - or at least as much as they can under the current rules - but the politicians wouldn't need them as much. That hopefully would mean that they would be more willing to represent the people, not the corporations. It would also even out the playing field for grassroots candidates, who have popularity but no war chest - the difference in funds wouldn't make as big of a difference on election day.

The problem with this reform is that you would need an act of congress - I don't see the FCC doing this on their own initiative.

Re:Just Say NO to Democrats with no solutions.

[revscat]

It's not going to make the terrorists that want to kill Americans go away. The US not doing anything during the 1990s didn't stop them from bombing the Cole or the first unsuccessful World Trade Center bombing. We didn't do anything then, and they just kept coming.

Hello, Mr. Goddamn Liar, nice to meet you.

The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.

At this point, a vote for a Democrat is just to stop everything is the "solution". That's the hope of a lot of those on the left

The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Seeing as how the longer we stay there, the worse things get, the more terrorists attacks there are, and the more this war costs, that seems like a good fucking idea to me. "STAY THE COURSE! CUT AND RUN!" I have an idea! Know what would fight terrorism! You hitting yourself in the hammer! Just once, mind you. Oh wait, that didn't stop terrorism? Try it again! In fact, KEEP trying it! It'll work! GEORGE BUSH said so!

So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes. Maybe they'll stick. Maybe people will forget what a fascist sack of shit George Bush is. Then again maybe it'll turn around and bite you in the fucking ass because while you're all gung-ho over the GOP and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to, the values and treasure of your country are being willfully destroyed by those same people you so worshipfully defend.

Have a nice day, see you October 5th.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

What the fuck is this "Stay the course" bullshit?

A PLAN has things like:
#1. Milestones
#2. Budget
#3. Criteria for success
#4. Timeline

If we aren't hitting the milestones on time and on budget, then the plan needs to be re-evaluated and possibly dumped.

So far, all I've seen out of Bush and Co is:
#1. When we kill/capture Mr. X, things will improve.
#2. When the Iraqis do Y, things will improve.

So, an un-limited amount of money, to follow an un-known plan, to achieve un-stated objectives in the un-defined future.

How much money is too much to spend?
How many lives are too many to lose?
How long is too long to wait?

If you cannot answer those questions, then all you have is a fantasy.

Points.

[aussersterne]

First let me begin with "fascism." Rather than cover old ground again, everyone can just read my other post in this story about fascism and decide for themselves whether facist is an appropriate term for the Bush administration.

Now, on to the show.

"Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever."

Wrong. Appealing to an appropriate level of fear is a moral imperative if the fear is of a real threat. To watch someone face a real threat unbeknownst to them and not suggest to them that they should be afraid and do something about it would be morally unforgivable. What's at issue here is the "appropriate level of fear" that we should appeal to. The government suggests ZERO fear of them, and INFINITE fear of Al Qaeda, which runs not only counter to logic in the face of the size and reach of each, but also counter to actual history of abuse (the government having exercised more of it). The appropriate level of fear to which to appeal is likely a little bit in the case of Al Qaeda (about enough that you can call it "conscious awareness" but not much more) and a healthy portion in the case of the government (enough that you can call it "vigilance and a tendency toward activism" I should think).

"that's the same logic that the President is using to scare people into giving him power"
"logically fallacious bullshit"

It's not logically fallacious at all. You haven't pointed out the fallacy. It is not true that simply because the logic is incorrect in the case of the fear of terrorists, it must therefore also be incorrect in the case of the fear of government abuse. This is because the terrorists are not the government, ergo, an argument about the relative power of the government does not become fallacious simply because a similarly structured argument about the relative power of the terrorists is found to be fallacious.

And the terrorists are not the government. How about a thought experiment:

You post two things on the Yahoo! News discussion board that are not explicit threats. One would make Osama Bin Laden want to kill you if he found out about it, and the other would make Bush want to kill you if he found out about it.

In the case of OBL:

- Osama would likely never find out about it, as he'd have to stumble across it on the 'net during one of his marathon Yahoo! News-reading sessions

- If he did by some obscene cosmic conicidence find out about it, he'd gnash his teeth a lot at the fact that he had no idea where you lived or who you are

- Even if he somehow managed (and this boggles the mind) to find out who you are and where you lived, he'd still have a logistical exercise in trying to set up a hit on you here from all the way over there

- In truth, no matter how angry at you he was, he'd never bother, because it isn't worth the expense, complexity, or small potential reward of carrying out the exercise when compared to the risk of its failure

In the case of Bush:

- Given what we know now, it's likely in the national system the moment you post it, filed under "possible subversive, open up a file on him"

- Given corporate willingness to bow to government requests for data, they'd likely have your real name and address if they wanted it within a day or two, if not sooner

- Given the torture bill that just passed yesterday, they could decide that you are now an enemy combatant and can be picked up and tortured; the moment they decide this, you are legally outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts

- Now all that remains is for them to pick you up; a simple matter, just phone the local police and have them deliver you to the feds

- You are gone forever

That is the difference that makes one source of fear minor (terrorists) and the other source of fear major (government). You have made the mistake of assuming that the structure of an argument was invalid on its face

Conspiracy???

[SeattleGameboy]

And to all of you who believe in 9/11 government conspiracy, don't you find it odd, that some loner just HAPPENED to storm a high school and kill a pretty girl on the same day these bills were passed? And how EVERY newspaper and cable news is BURYING the real story of the day and are practically foaming at the mouth talking about how the girl might have been sexually abused before being killed? If you ask me, all of these news networks are PRAYING that she was abused so that they can talk about it endlessely for the rest of the year.

And unlike the 9/11 conspiracy, this only involved one person, which means it would have been INFINITELY easier to set this up and keep quiet...

Re:Congrats on your +5, insightful

[Politburo]

Many of us just disagree with you where "personal effects" begin and end.

True. But let's look at your argument again, with a few words changed.

"How personal effects translates into a letter that leaves your home, travels with an agent authorized by the federal government and possibly a private carrier contracted by the government, crosses federal land or at the very least land not owned by you, is beyond me."

And yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mail is subject to 4th amendment protections.