Slashdot Mirror
Domestic Spying Program to Get Judicial Oversight
Alchemist253 writes "The U.S. Justice Department has consented to court oversight (albeit via a secret court) of the controversial domestic wiretapping program (the "Terrorist Surveillance Program") previously discussed at length on Slashdot. From the article, "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""
... but with a different Congress ... suddenly it's going back to the court with warrants and everything?
Makes you kind of wonder how "legal" it was in the first place. And whether this is just an attempt to avoid an investigation.
"or an associated terror group" so someone like anyone that doesn't like them.. i see
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Who's to say that the administration that has been openly breaking the law for years hasn't just created another hidden illegal program and shifted their illegal activity to that?
Why couldn't they have just done this in the first place? Then there would have been minimal objection and none of this PR nightmare.
If they'd just gone through court procedures in the first place (it's not like it's difficult to get a FISA warrant), there wouldn't have been such a controversy in the first place.
Ironically, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the administration's insistence last year that they didn't need judicial overview contributed to the electoral frustration that cost the Republicans control of Congress.
This link explained alot for me. Too bad it's a secret court, but it's better than no court, and at least it's a court within the judicial branch of the federal government.
! OpenDocument&Click=
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/fisc_bdy
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "Church Committee"), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court's suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel's Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General's certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a "foreign power" or "the agent of a foreign power" and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
The judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court travel to Washington, D.C., to hear warrant applications on a rotating basis. To ensure that the court can convene on short notice, at least one of the judges is required to be a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government's request, the decisions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of the almost perfect record of the Department of Justice in obtaining the surveillance warrants and other powers it requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the review court had no occasion to meet until 2002. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (115 Stat. 272) expanded the time periods for which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can authorize surveillance and increased the number of judges serving the court from seven to eleven.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
1. It sounds like they won't be pulling NSA cables out of the AT&T (and other) facilities. They're just claiming to use them under FISA now. This wired blog raises some interesting questions about this.
2. During Attorney General Gonzales' previous congressional testimony on this topic, he was very careful and lawerly in asserting that his statements only applied to the program under discussion, that is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The clear implication is that there are other programs besides TSP which have not seen the light of day.
In short, don't let this stop the oversight hearings.
Which is a good thing.
First they need to troll through all the communication looking for patterns. Once they find something, then they can eavesdrop specific targets and go for a warrant.
But you don't know what you're looking for until you find it.
It sounds like not much is changing really, except FISA has given the ok to the datamining.
"[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""
That's nice. How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?
FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
That's exactly what should have happened from the very beginning
It was obvious then and its obvious now.
To go with warrantless secret spying, secret charges in violation of secret laws on the secret evidence that resuts in secret detentions.
"Secrecy" and "Oversight" are oxymoronic.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
According to his letter, Gonzalez hasn't actually subjected the program to judicial oversight. What he's done is gone judge-shopping to find a single judge to declare the entire program authorized.
The problem is, that's not how warrants work. Warrants have to be specific and time limited - to avoid exactly the behavior that Gonzalez in engaging in: blanket invasion into the privacy of all Americans without any legitimate reason to think they're doing anything wrong.
Remember: the laws we have on civil liberties aren't there to protect the guilty. They're there to protect the innocent, namely us.
FYI: It is not a "Terrorist Surveillance Program" - it is a "Public Surveillance Program".
:-)
They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
This is a post that I have used many times before
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying e
... than an innocent man hang. Is a doctrine that seems to have been trampled in the War on Terror fear mongering campaign.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Most people have only been asking for the same kind of oversight as the current FISA court accomplishes -- a warrant for each instance of someone who is going to be monitored -- and then most are willing to accept the idea. Why did it take clandestine discovery that the program even existed, court challenges to its validity, and a couple of years of widespread public outrage for the right thing to finally be done? The law was on the books. It should have been a no-brainer: yes, do what is needed, but within the context FISA laws/courts to make sure it isn't abused, because people are justifiably sensitive about the issue of their own government spying on them. How hard is that to figure out? And if FISA wasn't adequate for some reason, then, for heaven's sake, emend the law.
Maybe this is the sign the Bush administration isn't incorrigible. That would be nice.
Sure this is still not perfect, but this is basically a hocked-up loogie spit right in the face of the ultimate right wing (if you'll pardon the somewhat gross metaphor). There are still legitimate security and privacy concerns at stake here, but at least the slobbering right-wing masturbation fantasy of a secret police force that has no checks or balances on its power whatsoever has taken yet another step away from reality. Go freedom!!
and it's gonna get us killed, whether you like it or not. We are more vulnerable now that investigators have to wade through the legal system. If you've seen the latest episode of 24, you'll know what I'm talking about, a nuclear attack on an american city. With the appropriate monitoring systems in place, that would have never happened on the show but they were hamstrung like the FBI and NSA is today. Blame the leftists and the god damn liberals for the terror that will befall us :(
I'm reminded of a FullMetal Alchemist quote, "I had to see it for myself...Innocent people don't cover their tracks." I was hoping that the administration was on the up and up, but this is definitely a signal that what they are and were doing has highly questionable legal merit. Far from proof, but highly suspicious looking.
Only the proceedings.
"monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group."
So he/she is possibly related to a group that is possibly associated with al Qaeda... I hope the evidence is a damn lot stronger than this half-hearted wording suggests.
This of course also happens after a bunch of federal judges were replaced.
For over two hundred years our fellow Americans have died so that we could live free and not all of them have been soldiers, but patriots all. For us to give up so willingly, the liberties they fought and died for, does an extreme dishonor to those patriots and that includes the victims of the 911 attacks. "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause."Padmé Amidala The last line is from fiction, let's keep it there.
Check out this link:
3 250
.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/
AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see
Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what they do with foreign communications.
Read this:
c le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Does that sound like a rubber stamp to you? The judge was putting the FBI on notice. They will not grant a warrant based solely on a NSA lead. With this new ruling that is not true anymore. A simple NSA lead is all that will be required for the FBI to get a FISA warrant.
The NSA has monitored communications for years and years and years. The TARGETS of the tapping were foreign communications. If the foreign communication terminated in the US, they could still listen in on it, just like the police could listen in if you called a person that was subject to a tap (suspected criminal). You could become the subject of a tap if you said something that the police wanted to follow up on. They of course would have to go back to the court and get another warrant for you.
This is how the TSP worked. The NSA did what they always do. If they got a domestic lead they would pass it to the FBI so the FBI could follow up and potentially get a FISA warrant. The FBI is subject to civilian courts, the NSA is not.
Riiight!. So let me get this straight....The reason we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11 is because of Bush's illegal spying, which was necessary to keep us all safe. But now that it looks like he might actually be held accountable for those illegal acts, it's suddenly no longer necessary for Bush to conduct illegal spying just to keep us safe.
Either Bush was right, and we're about to see a huge upswing in successful terrorists attacks (or at least unsuccessful ones that manage to see daylight) because Bush can no longer spy on people and foil the plots before anyone even hears about them, or we'll go on seeing about the same level of terrorist activity (what color are we at now?) as we were before and would have been if Bush had been playing by the rules all along.
If they can claim a lack of terrorist attacks then as proof that the program was working, then we can use the same fallacy now to prove it was never necessary in the first place.
Ain't payback a bitch?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Ummm, that authority was given to FISA years ago. The question should not be whether they now will be allowed to do their job, but if those who broke the law in circumventing it will be held accountable.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's not needed anymore because this ruling allows for FISA warrants based purely on NSA leads with no FBI follow up. The NSA will do what it has always done, target foreign communications for tapping. If they happen on interesting communication that terminates in the US, they can pass this information to the FBI and a warrant will be granted. The FBI can now make the US side a target of a tap.
c le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html.
Nothing has changed except the bar was lowered. Previously the FISA court required *more* information from the FBI beyond a simple lead from the NSA. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
What the court is saying is that not only was the TSP legal, but they now make it easier to make the US side a target of a tap.
A secret court. Oh yeah, that makes me feel much better. Let them just reimplement the STAR CHAMBER then.
I tell you what. I am going to start spying on you. But its ok. Because I've set up my own secret court to approve it.
All government should be clear and transparent. I'm sorry, but there are no secrets worth keeping in the interest of national security. Everything that is kept secret is always shady underhanded dealings that undermine democracy. They have been going on so long there pretty much is zero democracy left. Everyone here could be 100% pissed off about something, but it doesnt matter, because they can't vote on it directly right here, right now, or ever. The only thing our vote has been watered down is to a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douce every four years (Southpark episode), which is basically no democracy at all, only the faintest semblence of one to be able to call it 'democratic'.
Humanity does not want American Style democracy. American's do not want American style democracy.
"[W]arrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States" is not a wiretap. A wiretap involves intercepting the actual content of a conversation.
The mere fact that Person A called Person B at time X does not require a wiretap to ascertain. In fact, such information can be found from phone billing data.
Which, by the way, you have no expectation of privacy for.
That's right - you have no expectation of privacy for your phone billing data. That's settled law.
Whether you like that or not isn't really relevant when the legality of the feds obtaining what amounts to phone billing data is being discussed.
I'm sure there's a FreeRepublic link on the story, too.
"SpaceLifeForm" indeed.
Well, before the election, the GOP idea was that a few handpicked Congresscritters were going to get little reports and briefings on the program and call that "oversight." Now after the election, wait a minute, that's no good, the new bunch might ask hard questions. So now the Bushies would prefer the court after all. George is just like a spoiled kid -- "Oh wait -- the ice cream has vitamins? I changed my mind, I want the pudding after all."
Their goal would still seem to be maximizing the President's power and discretion -- he's just picking the least restrictive, or intrusive on his freedom to operate, of his current choices.
The story from March 2006:
March 9, 2006
G.O.P. Plan Would Allow Spying Without Warrants
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The plan by Senate Republicans to step up oversight of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program would also give legislative sanction for the first time to long-term eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant, legal experts said on Wednesday.
Civil liberties advocates called the proposed oversight inadequate and the licensing of eavesdropping without warrants unnecessary and unwise. But the Republican senators who drafted the proposal said it represented a hard-wrung compromise with the White House, which strongly opposed any Congressional interference in the eavesdropping program.
The Republican proposal appeared likely to win approval from the full Senate, despite Democratic opposition and some remaining questions from Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, emphasized in an interview on Wednesday the White House's resistance to any limits on what President Bush considers his inherent power to order surveillance of potential terrorists on American soil.
"There was a lot of pushback," Mr. Roberts said. "So we kept saying, I am sorry, that is not acceptable, and the reality is such that you will either do this or you will face bigger obstacles and we will get into confrontation."
The negotiations that produced a deal on the eavesdropping program left Senate Democrats fuming on the sidelines, adding to the partisan squabbling on the Intelligence Committee that longtime observers of Congress say is unprecedented.
But on Wednesday, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."
Mr. Rockefeller said he and Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Dianne Feinstein of California, both fellow Democrats, would serve on the subcommittee, joining Mr. Roberts and three other Republicans, Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Christopher S. Bond of Missouri.
On Tuesday, Mr. Rockefeller said he believed that the committee's Republicans were "under the control" of the White House. Mr. Roberts said on Wednesday that he resented being portrayed as what he called a "lap dog of the administration."
"He doesn't know how hard we worked," Mr. Roberts said of Mr. Rockefeller.
The Republican proposal would give Congressional approval to the eavesdropping program much as it was secretly authorized by Mr. Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks, with limited notification to a handful of Congressional leaders. The N.S.A. would be permitted to intercept the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people in the United States if there was "probable cause to believe that one party to the communication is a member, affiliate, or working in support of a terrorist group or organization," according to a written summary of the proposal issued by its Republican sponsors. The finding of probable cause would not be reviewed by an
Those words pretty much come straight from a lawyer currently practicing communications law.
But don't let reality interfere with your masturbatory fantasies.
remember, everything ENRON did was "legal" at the time.
that doesn't make it morally right.
if I have nothing to hide, why are you spying on me?
When they don't impeach Bush, are you gonna claim the Democratic congress is all a bunch of BusHaliburtonMcChimpy dupes?
I see a lot of ranting on the topic at Democratic Underground forums already. There was plenty of ranting when Peloski didn't immediately order Bush hauled out of the White House in an orange jumpsuit.
There are other priorities. For instance, the Democrats' quick move to introduce legislation to restrict the 'Blog Threat' as the first bill introduced this session in the Senate.
I'm sure the Minimum Wage rates higher, too.
The Constitution very well is living without amendments. It is deliberately vague, high level. It doesn't assert the specifics of very many laws, just how it will generally be. Like in relation to copy rights it doesn't specify a time, just says that they'll be secured to their creator for a limited time. What that limited time is can, and has changed.
We wouldn't still have a Constitution if it specified every little thing and required a massive effort to change it. It works because it lays down a framework, the interpretation of which can change.
The Senate's lobbying bill is bipartisan. The "blogger registration" amendment is Republican.
If Democrats don't impeach Bush, I will continue to condemn stalling and evasion of that duty, as I have already. Though not BusHalliburtonMcChimpy dupes (because that's the Republican fascism), but rather just politicians who prioritize "don't rock the boat, we're winning anyway" over justice. I understand the political requirement to marshal support beyond mere 5:1 disapproval of Bush to actually impeach. Like evidence produced by real investigations with legit processes, not Clinton-blowjob-style impeachment bullshit. But I'm not a Democrat, so I have no problem badgering them to do their duty and impeach. And to end the Iraq War, rather than merely enable Bush to brand all Republicans in 2008 as "Iraq Warmongers". Which I do regularly, as well.
Next loaded hypothetical question, please.
In the meantime, who did you vote for president in 2004?
--
make install -not war
Oh, that's cool. And the super-duper instaquickynet showed me in seconds just how high that one flew overhead.
What?
FISA is a court of Bush direct appointees, he'll likely stuff it with cronies now.
I respect peoples privacy, and I really desire my own.
However, if they really were/are using this only for suspected terror targets, I really don't mind. I don't talk about anything over the phone that I would be terribly upset if some agent in a room heard and woudln't do anyhting about unless its terror related.
I suppose it comes down to the principal of it going against the countries founding rights... In my opinion, its justified in the name of security as long as not abused and only used in the cases when its necissary.
Calling it a "domestic" spy program when it clearly was targeting INTERnational, not INTRAnational, calls, is pretty much a lie. Please, stop lying. It makes you look bad.
You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
You think the courts will protect your rights? That "judicial oversight" means anything? In 2005 the FISA court received 2074 requests from the Department of Justice and approved 2072 (the other two were withdrawn). http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2005rept.ht ml
Since the program only covers international calls? Domestic calls have never required a pre-authorization. Cops have ALWAYS been free under wiretapping law to go ahead with a wiretap and obtain judicial approval within 72 hours after the beginning of the wiretap.
Just curious...
There are elements of the Bush administration that truly believe in the "unitary executive" theory of American government, which by all appearances goes something like this:
1. President does something shady (the reasons aren't relevant to this discussion).
2. Congress makes a law to make it illegal to do what the President is doing.
2. President signs a law (sometimes with a 'signing statement'), and ignores it.
3. When someone catches him at it, appear to stop doing whatever he wasn't supposed to do so any court case will be considered moot.
4. Start up a new program that does exactly what the old one did after the courts have thrown out the case in question.
5. Goto 2.
Bush's treatment of 'detainees' (i.e. prisoners) including US citizens, the warrentless wiretaps, and his administration's handling of government contracts all demonstrate this pattern.
This time around, it looks to me like the threat of oversight by Congress and the courts is causing step 3 of this process to happen.
I am officially gone from
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
IAAL The Constitution requires that search warrants be issued only on "probable cause." This means giving a judge enough to show that you reasonably believe that something illegal is going on. FISA uses a different, toothless version of "probable cause" -- simply a statement that "we want to find out about something." That definition is unconstitutional for domestic use. That's why FISA is the FOREIGN Intelligence Security Act. The administration's commitment to go to the FISA court for domestic investigations is STILL unconstitutional. They didn't back down. They just threw up a smoke screen.
FYI: It is not a "Terrorist Surveillance Program" - it is a "Public Surveillance Program".
They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".
Please explain how you think this program works, because I thought it was filtering telephone call routing information to fill in hidden nodes in graphs built to analyze social networks of terrorist groups, and because it's under NSA jurisdiction discarded all calls without an international prefix before analysis. This is just what I've read from experts over the past year, but I'm interested in learning more about it.
Please also include the number of employees, bandwidth, and computing power (also include Watts for bonus points) required to listen in on everybody's phone calls to their domestic girlfriends. The number I seem to recall for the first point is forty million.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Moderation -2
100% Flamebait
Countering a message pretending that Bush's warrantless NSA spying wasn't illegal with a link to the Federal court decision that it was is "Flamebait"? Or maybe pointing out that such a crime is impeachable is "Flamebait"? Or maybe pointing out yet another impeachable crime already underway, an Iran War, that can be stopped before it kills thousands, maybe millions, is "Flamebait"? Maybe pointing out that the 109th (Republican) Congress was under Karl Rove's political control is "Flamebait".
No, that's all just simple reality, directly contradicting the claim that Bush's crimes are legal, and ontopic to the story we're discussing. Just because fascist Bushbabies are pisspants crybabies doesn't make that message a flame, it makes them hairtrigger partisan zombie trollMods.
--
make install -not war
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
NSA trollModBot is wedged on "Flamebait". Can't the latest version sometimes trollMod as "Offtopic" or "Troll"?
--
make install -not war