NID Admits ATT/Verizon Help With Wiretaps

Unlikely_Hero writes "National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has confirmed in an interview with the El Paso Times that AT&T and Verizon have both been helping the Bush Administration conduct wiretaps. He also claims that only 100 Americans are under surveilance, that it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a telephone number and suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue."

Comments

Unless

[chuckymonkey]

The President grants executive powers to do what he wants. Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with. When does the fear mongering to get broad reaching government powers end? I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 5 or so years due to it. Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical. I'm getting to the point where I want to purge the entire administration from the lowest congressman all the way up and start over. Take out the special interest groups, no corporate sponsorships for campaigns, and get rid of the all the harpy lobbyists. I'm just so sick of it.

Re:Unless

[QuantumG]

purge the entire administration Like Stalin did?

I think I hear the Secret Service calling you...

Re:Unless

[baldass_newbie]

Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.

Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.
We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.
We cut off their cash cow...of course they're pissed.

Same things happening with Russian and Iran.
You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?
Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.

Re:Unless

[MMC Monster]

The President grants executive powers to do what he wants. Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with. When does the fear mongering to get broad reaching government powers end? I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 5 or so years due to it. Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical. I'm getting to the point where I want to purge the entire administration from the lowest congressman all the way up and start over. Take out the special interest groups, no corporate sponsorships for campaigns, and get rid of the all the harpy lobbyists. I'm just so sick of it. It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal.

No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.

Re:Unless

[Rhaban]

We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history. Can you please remind me who put Saddam in place at first?

Re:Unless

[turbofisk]

Of course there is a lot of truth in this... France did have a lot of presence in Iraq and made a bundle, but the *people* are pissed about something else. Saying that the world is pissed out of envy and money is just pure bs. There is the whole spectrum your carelessly choose to ignore. How about invading a sovereign country, killing thousands of civilians and generally destabilizing the middle east even more while doing some cowboy shit about terrorists are behind every stone and thus any measure is ok. Generally you have polarized the world as well, either your with us or your against us. Saddam was a dictator and we can't have that... All while supporting other countries who are run by dictatorship. Of the top of my head: Using capital punishment on your own citizens is a biggie. Degrading taliban and terrorists to Enemy combatant and thus denying them the rights of the Geneva Convention. No trials either. By doing this, imo you have let the terrorists destroy what you are trying to defend - freedom. And at the same time those who are whistleblowers get the sharp end of the stick for doing just that, ensuring that illegal stuff doesn't pass. I'm from Sweden and there is a general resentment that just wasn't there during the Clinton era.

Re:Unless

[oojimaflib]

Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.

Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon. We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history. That's hypocritical demonstrated. Any volunteers for the others?

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I shouldn't mention that the USA put Saddam into power in the first place.

Re:Unless

[why-is-it]

>Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.
Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.

If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

While there is an element of truth there, I'm not sure that is something to be proud of...

We've liberated the French two times

FWIW, French intervention was required in order for the American Revolution to succeed.

Besides, the Americans were YEARS late joining WWI and WWII. The US made an important contribution, but why the delay in getting involved, if these wars were so important? I believe it was Churchill who said that the Americans never get involved in a war until they have determined which side is going to win...

and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam

So? It is speculated that GWB's grandfather made his fortune selling ammunition to the Nazis. Arms manufacturers will sell to anyone with money. If they were ethically inclined in the first place, they would probably not be dealing in weaponry.

during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.

Fraud larger than Enron or Worldcom? I hope not, because the oil-for-food program was overseen by American administrators...

You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?

So, because they do something bad, it's OK for your government to do something bad too?

Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.

What a witty retort. I was going to make a remark that all neo-cons were inbred rednecks, but I suppose that would be equally understood as well.

Re:Unless

[the eric conspiracy]

A regime change supported by the CIA during the cold war to fill a power vacuum left by the French and British colonial empires when they no longer were capable of playing the role of superpowers in the mideast. Give me a break. Europe has been mucking around fighting wars in that part of the world since before the sack of Baghdad by the sons of Genghis Khan. When Europe finally self destructed as a power in the Middle East due self-immolation in WWII the US had to pick up the pieces to prevent the Stalinists from overrunning Eurasia. Now all of a sudden this was a bad thing to do? Give me a goddam break. If this is the grasp of history that is prevalent in Europe your educational system is MUCH worse than is generally believed.

We are having and will continue to have major stability problems in the Middle East because of the mess Europe left behind when they ran home with their tails between their legs in the 40's and 50's. Unfortunately, and as usual the US is left to pick up the pieces and pay the bills in both dollars and lives. Now we are hearing COMPLAINTS from the Europeans on how it is being handled? Well, it is YOUR mess, get in there and clean it up.

What a bunch of hypocritical idiots.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is an undisputed fact that France would never have been freed from the Nazis without the intervention of the US during WWII Undisputed fact? Whoa, lay off the crack pipe.

The only reason the US stepped into the European campaign of WWII was to prevent Russia from liberating France (and rest of Europe).

Re:Unless

[orzetto]

We've liberated the French two times [...]

No you didn't. To begin with I do not think you (singular) served in both WWI and WWII, so stop bragging about "We".

In WWI the US had hardly a modern army to speak of. The US entered the war late and did little. It may be debated whether they tipped the balance, but it is a fact that Germany and Austria-Hungary were already at the brink of collapse in 1917. And anyway, Germany in WWI was just any nation at war, no better or worse than the other ones. They had not even started the war (Austria-Hungary did), so what's the point in talking of "liberation"? From what? In any case, the US sacrificed very little compared to the British, yet I don't hear the British whine so much about the French being ungrateful.

In WWII, most of the work to win the war was done by the Soviets. On any reasonable scale (soldiers dead, enemy soldiers killed, land lost, land gained, overall number of dead, ...), the Soviet Union sacrificed much more than the US, even counting in the Pacific theatre where only the US were active. The eastern front saw the two most bloody battles in human history at the same time (Leningrad and Stalingrad), each three times larger than the one in third place (battle of Wuhan). Had the US stayed out, France would have been liberated by the USSR instead of the USA, or it would simply have risen up and taken back sovereignty when Berlin would eventually have fallen to the Red Army.

So cut the "we saved the world"-crap. The reason the US emerged as a superpower after WWII was that they had gone through two world wars without a single enemy soldier on their terrain, and had entered only when the outcome was almost guaranteed. Just like Switzerland, the US found out that not having armies marching through your country is beneficial to the economy.

[...] the largest fraud in world history.

According to Transparency International, the most corrupt politician ever was Suharto, dictator of Indonesia. Do I have to tell you who installed the guy, let him carry genocidal policies including but not limited to the invasion of East Timor?

You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?

I don't "hate America", I think people (Americans, French, Congolese, Tikopians) who refuse to hear criticism of their own country, stick by the motto "good or bad it's my country", or trust the government (any government) are stupid and a threat to democracy.

Re:Unless

[Laxitive]

Here's the thing, there's probably not much that you need to personally apologize for (I'm guessing here.. I don't know you, who knows). What's missing is a national, formal acceptance of fault. Many in your country need to let go of the idea that accepting a mistake on the part of their country is tantamount to pissing on their graves of their ancestors.

Without an explicit acceptance of what your country ended up doing wrong, there is little hope of avoiding a repeat of the exact same thing in some other context. How are you, as a nation, going to educate your children so that they don't fall for the exact same trap when some tragedy strikes their country when THEY are the electorate? How is it possible to do this when every single time someone brings up a criticism, some weasel pops out of the waxwork to distract attention towards irrelevant actions by others? How is your personal apology going to combat that?

Your attitude seems to be one of putting things behind you and moving on.. which is understandable considering the embarassing trauma I'm sure you are suffering from.. but this is the wrong reaction to have. At the very least, your country owes it to the millions of people whose lives were ruined in part because of its actions, to examine what went wrong, reconcile with it, and put in place measures to avoid it. And don't for a second let yourself think that this expectation is somehow limited to just America. Every country has that obligation. Some may live up to that obligation, and others may not, but whether or not some other country holds itself up to a high standard shouldn't be a basis for excusing your own. It may seem to many that America receives an unfair amount of attention on this front.. but for christ's sake.. you're the most powerful nation in the world. Your influence affects EVERYBODY.. so OF COURSE people are going to scrutinize your actions more than the actions of others. You should welcome that, and rise to the challenge, and not run up a tree like a flayed cat.

Also, don't take this as me personally addressing you. I am speaking towards general tendencies I identify in your country's population, in your media, in your national social identity.

Now, I'm not sure abut your claim about America being the world's "greatest country", but I'd agree that your country has a many qualities that others could learn from, and that you have great potential.. for both good and bad. Your history is full of examples of both, and pointing out the bad does not detract from the good. Likewise, pointing out the good does not excuse the bad (and neither does pointing out the bad in others), and does not excuse the need for an honest self-appraisal amongst your citizens on the role their country plays in the world. This is one area where your people have been far too lax.

Re:Unless

[Clandestine_Blaze]

No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.

So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war. You're taking the statement out of context. The OP was speaking in the context of the US Government AND the US Populace, not foreign ones. Here was the paragraph with that information:

It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal. Emphasis mine. It is generally accepted for the government to spy on foreign governments; the United States does it all the time and other countries do it to the U.S. as well. Furthermore, your example is flawed as the Japanese would have never discussed Pearl Harbor over AT&T lines, unless communications were being made to and from the U.S. at some point. Even then, the electronic surveillance statute allows the President to authorize surveillance without a warrant for up to one year only if it is for foreign intelligence information. So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Without A Court Order

The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.

*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3):
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments

US CODE: Title 50, 1801. Definitions

Re:Unless

[conspirator57]

"I'm not a history buff....I was going to ask why there was all this interest overthere way back when in the 30's-50's as another poster mentioned. I mean, oil from over there wasn't as big a concern back then was it?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_re lations#The_1950s_and_the_politics_of_oil.2C_a_tur ning_point

Yes. that's why we helped the Brits depose the democracy in Iran and set up the shah. The whole rationale was that the democratic government there wanted to boot out the British oil companies and run their natural resource exploitation locally on better terms for the locals. You know, a free market, not a demand-side imperial market. Small wonder that bit of hypocrisy (we claim to love democracy and to want to spread it, but topple it when the locals elect leaders that do stuff we don't like) earned us a dark place in the hearts of Iranians.

We've also done it in Latin America.

I love hearing interventionist conservatives claim we're spreading democracy and how that's such a good thing when our history is full of American interventionists toppling democracies. It's the elephant in the room that isn't spoken of: they'll blab platitudes about our noble objectives until those we're "helping" decide to do something we don't like. Then we find it more advantageous to throw them back into the tender mercies of despotism.

And for the record, I'm not a "lib" or "commie" or whatever loaded word you care to use because you disagree with me: I'm an independent with fiscally-conservative, anti-authoritarian, anti-interventionist, libertarian, and constitutionalist leanings.

Due Process..

[lionchild]

There's a reason it takes over 200 hours to assemble what you need to get a wiretap warrant. Due proccess is meant to insure that honest people have privacy preserved, and that the resources we have are being focused on those who really are potentially criminial.

Is it perfect? No, probably not. But it's what we have setup now and short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.

Re:Due Process..

[downix]

Indeed. Due process is a concept often forgotten in this day and age, but it was one of the foundations that the United States were founded on. Do things right, or don't do them at all I say.

Still using that tired, sad old line?

[Sunburnt]

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.

This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored. Presumably they know that they're targets of one of the world's most technologically advanced intelligence agencies. That's not even counting the fact that most recent incidents of terrorism have been homegrown, and as likely to be about abortion or good ol' anti-government paranoia as they are about U.S. support for Israel. If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system.

Every time the courts point out that the Constitution might have some bearing on this administration's actions, the "dead Americans" flag gets waved. Nothing new here.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[folstaff]

It didn't say 100 Americans. It said 100 people living in this country. They are most probably not citizens and they are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.

Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.

Re:Um, wha?

[OpenGLFan]

Agreed. They're not doing 200 hours (or even 200 man-hours) of paperwork -- it shouldn't take a Master's Thesis to get a FISA warrant.

In fact, the admission that they have to spend an additional 200 hours gathering evidence is a clear admission of wrongdoing on their part. Our Constitution provides security against arbitrary searches and seizures; if it takes 200 additional hours to gather enough evidence to form a mere suspicion of wrongdoing, then the initial justification for the wiretap must be fairly flimsy.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that it is not 100 Americans, it is less than 100 people in the US. That is a subtle, but important difference. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is significantly different than 100 Americans. This topic has enough disagreements on principle, that it is important to get the facts right. That difference that I pointed out makes a difference as to what principles are violated (or not)by this wiretapping. Mis-stating the facts makes it harder to find common ground. Mis-stating the facts also increases the likelihood of people dismissing valid arguments because they no longer trust the person making them to not distort things.

Separation of Powers

[E 99]

FTA:

But when the ruling had to be renewed in the spring, another judge saw the operations differently. This judge, who McConnell did not identify, decided that the government needed a warrant to monitor a conversation between foreigners when the signal traveled on a wire in the U.S. communications network.

This is insane. Besides the fact that no sane individual would come to that conclusion, no one but the legislature has the legitimate power to make that decision. The administration has sworn a duty to disregard unconstitutional declarations of judges on this or any other court. If this administration won't stand up to that responsibility, I can't imagine any other administration will in this day and age.

The unanswered question...

[Jason Levine]

Any Bush supporters out there? Ok, asking for a Bush supporter on Slashdot is probably like walking into a Microsoft board meeting and asking how many people run Linux. ;-)

Still, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same series of question and I have yet to get a reply from any Bush supporters (even when there are Bush supporters replying to the topic). The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.

Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)

Re:The unanswered question...

[jahudabudy]

You know, if you truly want to support Bush to this crowd, maybe you should try be a bit less straw-like in your support. That kind of thing typically irritates intelligent people. Since a sib has pointed out another instance, I'll limit myself to this:

Jason posted Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?

you responded Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries.

Pretty subtle, except that this debate is based around the fact that Americans (as represented by the EFF) are suing ATT/Verizon. Not foreign adversaries. Americans. That's the crux of the issue. American citizens claim that they have been monitored by the US government without due process being followed. If true, that is almost certainly illegal & unconstitutional, despite the Administration's claims of privilege or national security. If it is not, I feel that Congress needs to address whatever legal loophole allows such actions. Others have stated they feel the same. You have avoided voicing your opinion on the matter, choosing instead to weigh in on an orthogonal issue. Which is no more relevant to the discussion at hand than my pizza topping preferences.

Understandable Misunderstanding

[Spamsonite]

There is understandably a tremendous amount of misunderstanding by the American people about how collection targets are designated, and there is a large body of law that governs how the process must take place. While it is true that almost any transmission of data, voice or otherwise, through this country can be monitored, the sheer scale of daily communications quickly renders random sampling useless. Call records are not call recordings - can you imagine just how much storage would be required to save for posterity the billion or so phone conversations that happen each day in this country? Even running a simple query on a database containing recent activity (not the conversation, just the fact that a call happened) can take hours. It is simply not done, both for time and practicality reasons - and because collecting on a non-designated target is very highly illegal.

Every intel collector and analyst is trained from day one in the law, whether they be military or civilian. They can all quote the name and contents of the document that governs the ways the NSA and our government may designate intel targets both within and without our own borders. Anyone who collects on a target that has not been sanctioned from on-high, even if it is his or her own phone number, is on a fast track to prison.

The targets that are being monitored within our own borders are so because the trail from overseas led back here. Known terrorists, affiliates, fund raisers, materials providers, etc., made calls to people here in the USA, or people in the USA called them. The foreign phone would already be under surveillance, and of course the connection to the USA should raise questions for any sane law enforcement agency. The law provides for monitoring US citizens in this and other very narrowly-defined cases, though they must still be officially designated as targets, which is not a simple process. Even the warrantless taps only give a day or so of leeway, the government must prove in a hurry that they really need to be listening in or all data must be purged.

And perhaps the most important reason that you can go through your day without worrying if someone is listening in to you asking your Aunt Bea to bring her special blueberry pie to the family reunion is that analysts are Americans and have Aunt Bea's too, and they have the same expectation of privacy that you have. If they participate in a big-brother system that monitors our populace at a whim, then it's only a matter of time before that system grows and starts to eat its own.

The intel community is a very paranoid place - both about what others are doing, but incredibly more so about that activities of its own members.

Re:Understandable Misunderstanding

[LukeCage]

Why exactly should we believe what you say? What evidence is there of this? Without a warrant, no one knows why or who they government is monitoring. No one knows the programs are in place. Millions get poured into the "national security" coffers and we have no idea how and why this money is used.

You could easily say in 1968, "Oh don't worry, this stuff is very complicated, we are only using it to protect America from Moscow." Surprise, surprise, by the middle of the 70s it's been revealed that in fact intelligence has been taken on all kinds of people, from Martin Luther King to Nixon's political enemies, far outside the scope of what most Americans find reasonable. That's why we passed the FISA law in 1978, all it says is that you need to get a warrant from a special court to eavesdrop, and you can do it retroactively. This is simply to keep a record and keep tabs on government surveillance. Since 2002 our president has admitted to openly defying this law, which is a felony. It's really that simple.

The Key: Under FISA warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

He said spying on 100 people under FISA warrants. The issue is those they are spying on without a warrant. The issue is the dragnet style data collection they use.

A simple lesson needs to be taught

[kwandar]

... put their executives in jail. I wouldn't stand by and acquiesce to illegal activities, why should they be allowed to, irrespective of who asked?

Illegal surveillance of Americans

[harshmanrob]

Who are these Americans that are under surveillance? What a load of crap. No America citizen should be under surveillance by the government unless they got these people on film building bombs or something or records proving they plan to commit terrorist acts.
Nixon pulled this when he was in office. Misusing the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans who did not agree with the Republican party.
I cannot say the Democrats are any better. Clinton used the IRS to harass those he hated as well.
I said it before and I will say it again...if I get one of those National Security Letters, it will be posted right here on slashdot.org and I will take out an Ad in the local paper, get it on dailykos.com, anyone who'll take it. I ain't afraid of these Republican/Christian government fucks.

HEEEELLLLLLL NO!

[spikedvodka]

suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue." If a company illegally gives information (hypothetically about me) to the government, as part of an illegal plan. Not only should I be able to sue their pants off (to the point where I can pay not only for my kids' college education through to 5 PHDs, but also afford to pay to have an OC-3 line run right to my house) but they should be brought up on criminal charges.

Enough already with this "You so something bad for us and you're safe" bit.

Soap (check) -> Ballot (Check) -> Jury (Forbidden by Law) -> Ammo?

I'm not one to advocate for violence, but ya'know... when you have eliminated the impossible (or ineffective in this case) whatever remains...

this makes me mad

Am I nuts or has tinfoil really become necessary?

[bjk002]

short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.

When did we the people give permission to a company (ANY company), the right to spy on us? IANAL but my god everything I do know about law treats a corporate entity as a person when it comes to political speech, etc... How can one person legally spy on another? Short answer: They CAN'T!!

This is NOT about due process at all, this is about constitutionally protected RIGHTS! Where is the outrage? How can we be sitting here on /. even having this conversation? We should all be in the streets of DC shutting the capitol down until this S**T is resolved. Have we become so comfortable in our lives here in the US that we really just don't care anymore at all?!?

The NID and his cronies can get these warrants retroactively, due process only enters into it after our rights have been violated in the first place. STOP CRYING ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THE WARRANTS! What the **** does that have to do with the color of the sky? I don't care if it takes you 40000000000000 hours to get your warrants, I pay taxes to pay for that. But I guess I'm another nut job who cries every time the wind blows. Fine...

I won't be unreasonable. I'll live with retroactive warrants.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll live with a company of my government's choosing being allowed to conduct surveillance on me without consent or due process.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll pretend I don't notice camera's in every public place, satellites looking down on my every move, and a government funded spy agency directed at its citizenry.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll choose not to remember that my president (or any of his friends) are at any time able to label a citizen as an Enemy Combatant and lock them away without access to the courts.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll shut my mouth while the president is allowed to conduct war againsst anyone he chooses, regardless of intent or purpose, despite the will of the people.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just swallow my frustrations as my government provides HUGE tax incentives and monies to HIGHLY PROFITABLE companies run by friends of political figures.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just not pay attention as our government writes more and more laws in an attempt to control behavior and actions of it citizens.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just ignore that more and more of our citizens are being locked away in prisons for arbitrary crimes and that our prison system has a greater percentage of the population housed within those prisons that any other time in history.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just look the other way as we round up classes of citizens and non-citizens and place them in camps so as to protect the public.

...

I won't be unreasonable. I'll be quiet as our once great and noble country is thrown away at the behest of those who have managed to dupe the public into believing that they are at all in control of themselves anymore.

I cry for our children and the mess we have ALL made.

Re:My guess....

[AtariDatacenter]

Despite your typos, I'd mod you up if I had the points. I didn't see them specifiy if it was wall clock hours or man hours. (I suppose you could further argue that they don't specify if any part of the man-hours are counted again for a different warrant, or if these were dedicated and discrete man hours to this. Much less how far down into the indirect support roles are included.)

So 200 hours could mean that someone entered something onto a screen in a computer system in five minutes and it was done. But they go back and count the time it takes to maintain the system, the techs to actually do the work, the approval process with multiple people, etc etc.

Or it could mean that from the time the process started, it takes 8 days for the wiretap to be in place.

Either way, I think this is a number used to create an impression rather than to convey any meaningful information.

Lawsuits

[phoenixwade]

I don't really care if the lawsuits go through or not.... But, I do believe that if we REALLY cared about these lawsuits, we'd change providers. Nothing is going to tell the business world we want our rights respected like taking our money from those that do not to those that do.

This is the reason the current administration is so secretive, they feel that the American people wouldn't stand for some of the things they are doing if it was known.

They feel that they have to do it whatever way they are doing it to do it right.

Therefore, the American public doesn't need to know.

Although I don't agree, I have to say there is some merit to this idea. This is our fault, though, not the administrations. We, as a whole, have a lemming mentality. The group is easily manipulated by fear, and by spin. It's too much to ask for, I suppose, that the average American spend as much time thinking about personal rights and freedoms as they do on a new car purchase. Come to think of it, I don't want that either. I was looking for an example of something the average Joe would think on a lot before making a purchase, and the realization hit me that we, again as gross averages, buy cars, hire doctors, buy food.... All on impulse.... I'm so depressed....

My girlfriend just pointed out that we spend a lot of time thinking about Celebrity sex. I could use that as a comparison.... Now, I'm REALLY depressed...

Re:How sad some of you are

[knewter]

Yeah, if it wasn't clear I was pro-individual-liberty with my big mac comment, I guess I'll just try to state that unequivocally. I feel strongly about your rights. I would fight for them, not because I love you but because I love truth and justice. Similarly, I would fight for your or anyone else's right to eat a big mac if you'd like. That is all.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.

And now we have government authority, backed up by guns, to not care.

FTSummary ... suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue.

And I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.

Which bit, exactly? I've read it many times, and I still can't find a bit that says it's not constitutional to tap somebody's phone if you have a warrant. In fact the fourth amendment makes it explicitly constitutional to violate people's privacy in far more fundamental ways, such as searching their person or possessions, if there is a good reason to believe that this is essential for the wellbeing of the state.

I know it's fashionable these days to pretend that anything the Bush administration does is unconstitutional, but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about the document that our great nation is founded upon.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[davester666]

I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.

Which bit, exactly? I've read it many times, and I still can't find a bit that says it's not constitutional to tap somebody's phone if you have a warrant. In fact the fourth amendment makes it explicitly constitutional to violate people's privacy in far more fundamental ways, such as searching their person or possessions, if there is a good reason to believe that this is essential for the wellbeing of the state.

Um, isn't this controversy about: a) them NOT getting warrants for the wiretaps and b) listening to American phone calls [because foreigners have no rights].

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[myyrk]

Which bit, exactly? I've read it many times, and I still can't find a bit that says it's not constitutional to tap somebody's phone if you have a warrant.

Reread the article and pay attention to the warrantless part, it means without a warrant.

Reread the constitution and pay attention to the warrant part, it means with a warrant.

Put the those together and come up with two, not three.

but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about the document that our great nation is founded upon.

but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about reading comprehension.