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.""
"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?
It was not legal to begin with. These kinds of warrants specifically require the oversight of the FISA court. All warrants require the oversight of the judiciary (by definition). When a specific set of Federal law statutes tell the Executive branch they can do certain Fourth Amendment searches only under the review of a specific court, the Executive branch damn well better comply. If George Bush does not end up in prison for this clear violation of United States Federal law (and numerous American's rights under the Constitution of the United States) you can officially call the Consitution "just a piece of paper" because it no longer has any meaning. But I think that may have been the intent of this administration to begin with.
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
Did you know that Chief Justice John Roberts also has the role of appointing the Judges that sit on the FISA Review Panel?
Link
It makes me wonder if a new judge was appointed to FISA recently.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
This of course also happens after a bunch of federal judges were replaced.
The reason it is not being renewed is because it is not needed anymore. All the FISA court needs is a NSA lead to grant a warrant now. Previously the FISA judges required some sort of additional information from a FBI investigation.
The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.
No. I won't let you get away with that assertion without some comment. The Constitution is a living document because it may be amended by a two-thirds majority of each legislative house. (It can also be amended by a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States; this has never been done.)
What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.
Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.
Yes, it is true the FISA court is shaky with respect to it being able to allow some of the searches the statutes appear to make it capable of allowing. Those searches are searches that would not be constitutional under any interpretation of the Constitution. And, yes, it does appear the present administration has done those searches. The searches are illegal. But if they had been performed in conformance with the FISA law, the present administration could present a qualified immunity defense successfully. Since the searches were not performed in conformance with FISA law, George Bush is going to prison. The alternative is to pretend the law does not exist, like George Bush did.
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.
People who use the word "liberal" OR "conservative" as defined by FOX should be taken out and shot. They're easy to spot by the context they use it in. (sorry about the grammar) It's like pulling the string on a Barbie doll. "I think math is hard" "Let's make some brownies". Pitiful
What?