Slashdot Mirror
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."
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Several sys admins I know tell me that they routinely get phone calls from folks in the law enforcement community asking for copies of emails and other surveillance. When they ask for a warrant or a national security letter, they never hear back again. How cooperative are we supposed to be? I realize that 200 hours is a lot of work, but how else can we stop freelance investigations and abuse?
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.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
200 hours to get a FISA warrant? No, the FISA system is pretty well documented. If you come to the judge with the right level of evidence, it takes a matter of a pen stroke.
They might be claiming it takes 200 hours to get that level of evidence but that is very misleading. It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
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.
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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!!!!)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
The fundamental problem is that civil liberties are barely permit after-the-fact punishment of criminals. Many get off because their liberties were violated. That's OK, because the criminal justice system doesn't need to convict everyone, it just needs to act as a deterrent.
Using the criminal justice system to prevent wrongdoing [terrorism] is not what it was designed to do. Preventative vs investigative. Airtight vs failure-tolerant. It requires unusual actions and far greater intrusion into liberties (esp privacy). Some [frightened] people are willing to sacrifice others liberties (and perhaps their own). Others are not. A fundamental conflict between different people. Politicians can exploit this and choose whichever side they wish.
Personally, I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
... 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?
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.
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
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
I'm stealing this from training I went to at LISA last year: you tell the LEO (law enforcement officer) politely, but firmly, that as company policy you're happy to help, but all such requests must be directed to the legal department.
The legal dep't will look at it and decide what to do, and then you do it. They know their job, you know yours; they don't make decisions about storage capacity or OS support, and you and I don't make decisions about constitutionality or legality. And if/when you've got the information they're looking for, you pass it back to the lawyers and they hand it over to the LEO.
This covers your ass, your company's ass, and the LEO's ass (assuming you or your friends aren't being socially engineered). Any LEO should be happy to talk to the lawyers.
Now, all that said...I realize that this leaves out questions of conscience. If Mark Klein hadn't had spilled the beans, we'd have been a lot longer finding out about this problem. But as a rule, I think those situations are rare; most law enforcement stuff is <handwave>your garden variety stuff -- robbery, fraud, yadda yadda</handwave> (sorry, no citation to back that up) -- and the odds of being involved in something truly offensive is pretty slim. I hope it stays that way.
Carousel is a lie!
short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.
/. 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?!?
...
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
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.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
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.
Funny... I don't remembering anything in the constitution that says that "civil rights are only for citizens" my understanding was that the laws applied equally to everybody in the country, Citizen, visitor, illegal alien.I find the concept that "They are not entitled to the same rights as citizens" a very common, and disturbing concept.
That being said, there are some very specific rights, that are explicitly awarded to citizens (see the 26th amendment), for example the right to vote. the fact that other rights don't explicitly state that they are for citizens, would very strongly imply that they are for all people in the country
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
The truth gets lost when you try to reword officials in this adminstration. I can't find links to what was actually said, but here is what The Washington Post and other sources have reported. My emphasis added:
"Law enforcement officials are targeting fewer than 100 people in the United States for secret court-approved wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, the top U.S. intelligence official said in an interview published yesterday."
Given the clever wordplay of the Bush administration, should we assume that there have been 100 wiretaps, or should we believe they're being clever with their words (again) and there are 100 wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, but an unknown number of warrantless wiretaps for other purposes?
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.
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...
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Wait, there's really an NID? I thought it was just something they made up for Stargate and staffed with former Star Trek cast members.
#include <signature.h>
You are lost in specifics of legitimate business and have missed evidence of political abuse of process. The ties between corporate and government intelligence allow routine, unreasonable search. Government agents are also being used for political purposes though illegal wiretaping and other programs. You might have noticed the screening portion of Bush "crowd control", where political opposition is excluded from public events. Detailed records are being kept for innocent Americans, and we have dipped so low as to spy on our own churches. These unAmerican practices were expressly outlawed in the wake of Watergate and other scandals. The president who signed those laws, claims they are being broken. This is a waste of your money and it will be used against you in business. Ultimately, this kind of abuse is all about economic advantage.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Members of the FISA think Bush has done more harm than good.
In this case, the "Dead Americans" flag should be thrown in the face of those who support abuse of process. When you abuse the legal system for political and economic advantage, you debase the system and impede it's function. The further from rule of law you get, the less justice you will see. A corrupt system is an expensive farce.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
There are many people inside the United States who are not Americans. The communications laws (IIRC from my work and play in the industry) use the broadly expansive category "US persons" which means anybody physically in the country.
There are green card holders and other legitimate workers, resident aliens of all kinds, and illegal aliens, just to name a few.
Other non-American inside the USA include students, tourists, and Democrats.
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.
-knewter
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.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.