Slashdot Mirror
National Intelligence Director Seeks Expansion of Spy Powers
Erris writes "The Bush administration is seeking even less judicial oversight for their spying efforts both here and abroad. An AP story is discussing proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act proposed by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. 'The changes McConnell is seeking mostly affect a cloak-and-dagger category of warrants used to investigate suspected spies, terrorists and other national security threats. The court-approved surveillance could include planting listening devices and hidden cameras, searching luggage and breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.' One of their specific goals is prosecution immunity for communications companies who comply with the program, a sheild for groups that violate privacy laws in turning over information to the NSA. The article notes that 'Critics question whether the changes are needed and worry about what the Bush administration has in store, given a rash of allegations about domestic surveillance and abuse of power.'"
...fuck you Bush, get the hell out of office. I want my country back.
FanFictionRecs.net
I've often wondered - suppose they surveil a house, assume nobody's home, and break in ("legally", if not justifiably). Now, if you were home, just sleeping when they broke in, and you snuck up and attacked the person you thought was an intruder - are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? I fear that the answer would be yes...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
I for one will take a decrease in national security if it means that my privacy remains intact.
Intelligence Director wants more spy powers.
IRS wants fewer tax exemptions.
Pope is Catholic.
Really, what do you expect someone in that position to want? Something to make his job harder? Not that I think he should get what he wants, I'm just not surprised he's asking for it.
...fuck you and Bush. I want my country back.
From TFA:
Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted," NSA Director Keith Alexander told the Senate last year.
Clarify the standards the FBI and NSA must use to get court orders for basic information about calls and e-mails -- such as the number dialed, e-mail address, or time and date of the communications. Civil liberties advocates contend the change will make it too easy for the government to access this information.
Triple the life span of a FISA warrant for a non-U.S. citizen from 120 days to one year, allowing the government to monitor much longer without checking back in with a judge.
Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
Extend from 72 hours to one week the amount of time the government can conduct surveillance without a court order in emergencies.
There is very little left to say about these continual abuses by the US goverment. Of course the one in charge of keeping the people safe want to increase the powers they have. No matter what they do or were stopped from doing if another terrorist attack happens people will blame them for everything they do. The problem is not that they are seeking power to protect their own interests it is that their is no strong oposition to it. If Americans revolted, held country wide strikes, marched down the street then you would see a change because not having that change would be even worse. As it stands, no one cares about your witty words and your self righteous indignation as yet more of your rights are removed. - I do agree that it's easy for me to criticize because i'm not an American and i understand that i just did the same thing here that I criticize in my post but what can i say I'm a hypocrite.
Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).
Anyway, I sure hope that they don't get expanded powers with less oversight. Maybe it's based on my predisposition to distrust the Bush administration, but they sort of earned that on their own over time. It seems to me that these guys are the reason why we have oversight. Actually, if you look at history, FISA was designed to protect us from the Bush administration (indirectly, of course). Some of Bush's cabinet members also served in President Nixon's cabinet. Many of FISA's provisions were written because of the Nixon administration's abuses against American citizens. The same guys that were screwing us over then are running the show now, and are claiming that we don't need to be protected anymore -- the same guys. I sure hope that they don't get what they're asking for.
-Turkey
What was I thinking?
I know the bumper sticker that says "Freedom Isn't Free" refers to wars and the cost of defending our country. But I think the saying is MUCH more appropriate for garbage like this. If having freedom means I'm slightly more vulnerable to a terrorist attack, FINE. To all the cowards out there who will sacrifice anything for the slightest illusion of safety, I say "Freedom isn't Free", move somewhere else.
The politicians do care about witty words and self righteous indignation to the point where they want to promote the creation of even more forums where even more people can use even more witty words and express even more self righteous indignation because, as long as people are talking about it, they aren't actually doing anything about it--and that's what government is all about.
I've already taken my stand and they made me homeless by treating me like a third class citizen on the job and then spreading enough garbage to prevent anyone else from wanting to employ me when I left.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin I think that sums it all up.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
I heard this guy on the radio complaining that this was characterized as them trying to get more power. He said they were just modernizing.
Reminds me of another pile of BS, the gist of which is that "modernizing the law" means surrendering quite a few more of your rights to the powers that be.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
It was made LAW for the purpose of fighting organized crime. Opponents claimed that it could and would be used against others. They were right. Now, RICO is used about 10,000 times per year, primary to add additional funding to law enforcement budgets around the country. In one episode of "COPS", featuring the sheriff who went on to make police videos for TV, they met before hand to discuss how they were going to divide the "loot"...i.e., the property of the family they had targeted with the act. Even if it later turns out that they raided the wrong house the "police" aren't required to return the property they stole using RICO. In more than one instance the home
owner being raided at 3:30AM thought buglers were invading his home and were shot dead when they brandished a pistol in hopes of scaring off the "buglers".
The RICO act is being abused as badly as the police at the South Denver precinct abused their power, a couple decades ago. The police would roll up to a block in force, cordon it off to prevent pedestrian or car traffic, then proceed to a building in the middle of the block. There, they'd start hauling out property and putting it into the police van. Afterward, the owner was called and notified of the "theft". The property usually appeared in pawn shops later on, but no one was ever caught until someone with a movie camera filmed the whole thing from a third floor apartment across the street from the target building.
Reducing accountability for using FISA will only INCREASE its abuse. Public prosecutors like Mike Nifong, and even politicians, would use the added spy powers to further their own goals and political ambitions.
No one is safe from RICO abuse. No one will be safe from FISA abuse.
The Constitution? What's that?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I remember the Florida recounts, that Democrats were whining, and "Dear God, when will this END!?"
I remember 9-11, and flying the biggest damn flag I could find.
Then I remember rumors of war with Iraq, and thinking we'd never do that--it was just about the stupidest thing we could do right then.
Then I remember them doing it, anyway.
Then I remember Kerry vs. Bush, no great candidate on either side. I remember thinking it was his mess, and he should clean the damn thing up. Neither one was that great, right?
Then I remember more Diebold scandals. I still feel like they're frauds.
Then I remember Haliburton, we're paying them HOW MUCH!? As if we aren't far enough in debt.
Then I remember oil companies posting record profits while the rest of us were suffering. I didn't buy the "War for Oil" bit at first--Saddam was a bad guy--but damn if the oil companies weren't out to screw us over. I still think he got what he deserved in the end, but I don't think it was worth it in terms of the lives lost, let alone the way we went about it.
Then I remember Abu Garib... since when is America allowed to torture people!?
Then I remember hearing that they were holding American citizens and suspending habeus corpus. Isn't that illegal? If not, it sure ought to be. Even terrorists deserve a fair trial. NO government should be allowed to lock people up and throw away the key. Although I admit that I might be inclined to bend that rule if the people who originally did it were charged with treason and thrown in prison without trial...
Then I remember hearing that our own country was spying on us for no reason and suing to make sure we didn't hear about it.
Then I remember them blowing up lite brites in Boston, and getting even stupider, rather than calming down with respect to stupid security theater measures. Mind you, I've only flown twice since 9-11 and NOT because I'm scared. At this point, I'd almost rather walk than deal with airport "security" that's stupid, reactive and pointless.
Then I remember a few other things, but mostly I remember getting so pissed at the Republican party that I turned my back on it and helped vote their ass out of congress in the mid term elections.
I suspect other people may have similar stories.
Even if there were no political parties, individual candidates would still favor middle-of-the-road approaches because they generally appeal to the largest number of voters. Depending on the size of different interest groups (say, environmentalists) you may be able to pull more votes by taking a strong stance on a limited scope issue, but another candidate might still beat you by taking a position halfway between the extreme and the middle.
As for the electoral college system...eh. Arguments for, arguments against. Beats the hell out of me. If politicians weren't universally so terrible, the voting system might not matter so much.
I like Lewis Black's quote: "In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in 12 years, we'll be voting for plants."
The article says
McConnell wants to: _Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
He wants to change the law to allow surveillance of foreigners inside the US, as opposed to the current law which, as I understand it, only allows surveillance of communications that involve a party outside the US. The current law has an objective standard that can be verified for compliance, namely that the communications goes outside the US. By changing the law to a characterization of the person, not the communications, it becomes less objective and more subject to abuse. Who is considered a foreigner by the people who want to spy on them? Someone who has lived in another country? A person with a green card? A person with a foreign accent? It is also easier to claim a "mistake" after the fact, and after the damage is done, when the criteria is so subjective.
"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted"
Once again, he is saying we should trust him to decide before the fact, based on his own judgment, whether seeking a court order to do the surveillance is even required. But more than saying the court should decide based on looser criteria, here he is saying the he shouldn't even have to go to the court at all, based on the extremely vague criteria "considerations about the target"
_Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
One of the very few checks against abuse of government power that we have is that companies who comply with a request that is illegal may be punished for their compliance through civil liability. This responsibility makes them think twice. This proposed change removes any incentive for a company to think twice about it's own culpability. The only logical thing for a company to do if this change were made would be to rollover instantly to any request for surveillance, since it would be the path of no risk.
These changes are simply more ways to dismantle checks and balances in the system, and make it harder for anyone in power to be held accountable.
Even if you believe that the people currently in power are acting in your interests and can be trusted, what happens when the next guy takes power? Will you trust him to act in your best interests? How will you know if he is, if there are no longer any objective criteria to measure his actions against?
"At least it's mostly Bush voters suffering in Iraq"
I don't think Iraqis can vote in US elections.
Shit, Cheney was on Rush's show regurgitating that old lie about Iraq having Al-Quieda connections just last week.
If you cling to something in the face of evidence against it...you are complicit.
I understand WHY some people willfully delude themselves into thinking the excuses for war are still valid...but that doesn't make it right.
Blar.
I did not support the war, I felt that the evidence was flimsy but I think that you are being unfair to those that did.
You are correct that there was evidence presented. For example the aluminium tubes were presented and were real. However, there was other "evidence" (testimony) that was completely bogus: such as claiming the only purpose for those aluminium tubes could be the manufacture of weapons grade plutonium. Now in this case, you may say that any rational, thinking person should be responsible enough to tell the difference between physical evidence and someones opinion. There would be a real problem if physical evidence was fabricated, but it wasn't. As I understand your position, it is simply the case that the implications and conclusions drawn from the physical evidence was overstated.
The reason that I disagree with your sentiment is that much of the evidence that compells governments to say "we know that [country X] was behind/ has/ did [Y]" is classified. They say "trust us". The overplayed example of the Twin Towers is a good example of this. How did we (the public) know that the Taliban played a key role in the Twin Towers incident? There is lots of information now about why that conclusion can be drawn, but it was relatively sparse at the time. In New Zealand, where I was living, the government pledged its support to the US and explained that it knew because of "classified information". I was against NZ going into Afganistan because I felt that they had not proven their point. As it turns out, the evidence they were working off was reliable -- or, more precisely, the conclusions they drew from the evidence presented are the same as the conclusions one can draw from the reasonably reliable information now publically avialable.
The real question is this: how can the public make an informed decision about the validity of the conclusions drawn if the evidence itself is classified? For this reason I believe that the US government bears far greater responsibility and did lie to the population when they said over-and-over that "we know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction".
The other point which is continually raised is
I agree that Saddam is a bad guy, and I think that you would be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees. But, if that is sufficient for making the case for an invasion, sell your invasion on that basis. Then people are able to have a rational discussion of what the costs and benefits are to their country and the Iraqi's of invading Iraq and disposing of Saddam. To try and scare people into agreeing with you and your plan of action by creating an imagined threat off flimsy evidence is dishonest. It amounts to being lied to.
The best thing I think that people should take out of your post is that there is an absolute need to question your government and not believe them. However, to try and get reliable information we should also be holding them responsible for misrepresenting information and actively engaging in spreading things they knew not to be true (see grandparent post about Cheney last week connecting AQ and Iraq). To dismiss these lies as acceptable because people should be questioning their government (and they should be!) is counter-productive.