Slashdot Mirror
Interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell
Schneier is reporting that Mike McConnell, U.S. National Intelligence Director, recently gave an interesting interview to the El Paso Times. "I don't think he's ever been so candid before. For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security."
All this means is they've either found another way to intercept the data, or the people they are trying to track are no longer using phone calls for communication, so it's ok to release the info. Otherwise, it was exceedingly stupid to give out the information, because once it's out you can pretty much count on that the folks you are trying to track will change their methods, same way Bin Laden started using personal envoys instead of Sat phones after it was leaked that we can track the sat phone calls.
I suspect that some officials are beginning to feel the wall against their backs.
I read sections of this article and it's like reading an interview with a government in Bizarro world, we'll it's like reading an interview with just about anyone in this Administration I suppose.
McConnell admitted the Telecos were in on illegal wiretapping (yes it was illegal, the FISA courts have told Bush this several times). He then went on to say that they should get immunity because that revelation would hurt their buisiness. He claims to be affraid it would put them out of business. Way to teach big corporations to not engage in illegal activities, grant them blanket immunity.
McConnell described how many people in and out of the US were currently under surveillance. He gave out more detail than anyone [I've seen] has been asking about. The critics of illegal wiretapping don't ask for methods and proceedures they just want this done within the constraints of the law. McConnell was getting awfully close to giving out dangerous information.
McConnell then states that publication of this information will kill Americans. No Shit, he said that. First off, it's hyperbole.. he didn't give out that much info but he started to get close. Second, why the fuck is National Intelligence Director giving out information to a reporter that will get Americans killed? I suspect he believes that.
There's something wrong with McConnell.
Impeach everyone
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
Who cares about the ATT trial. RTFA for f*** sake.
There in the first paragraphs he basically states that his primary objective when he came in was to make any communication between foreign parties handled by an American entity and passing via an American wire or fibre a fair game with no judicial oversight for purposes of foreign intelligence including one for purely economical purposes. Nothing to do with terrorism or domestic surveillance. Terrorism comes much later as an excuse.
Now add to that the particular insistence of this administration that an American person or corporation has to comply with American laws anywhere around the world and what does this mean from the perspective of "using american communications" and you get the real picture of what is this all about. It is not surprising that while they got lucky via judge-shopping the first time they got stopped the second time.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
you might have missed the point. we are not here for the actual news itself. we are here for what people say in comments in regard to that news. this is the /. crowd.
Read radical news here
You know, I'm really glad we have these government agencies so eager to set up this net and catch information exclusively about terrorist activities overseas that threaten our interests. The problem is they do not seem to understand (or want to) the implications of their actions.
Setting up a tap into the wires that carry ANY American's communication without some sort of check on their power to thwart abuse is unacceptable. As in, 'in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.' They have to put some kind of oversight in place and it can't be Albert Gonzales. It has to be judicial branch.
They could have amended the FISA law to remain legal (ie, concordant with the Constitution), but instead they passed a law that does indeed violate the Constitution. And that's pretty scary, that these agencies and our President and our Congress are not sensitive to protecting the law.
There's some strong arguments against the whole program. Slashdot covered the issue of 'well what if someone hacks the tap?' and that's a big problem. There's huge potential for abuse of power, as well. And there's always the prospect of the erosion of trust within a society which leads to totalitarian-style culture. There's enough doubt about the value of this thing that it should be forced through the courts.
There's still no evidence having the exact specifications of a pending attack on the USA would enable our government to do anything to prevent it. On September 11, 2001 attacks happened despite sufficient warning. They lacked the will to properly defend the country then. Now is no different.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
[....]
What's this guy smoking? He is smoking his job.
Imagine that you have his job. And imagine that you take it seriously.
Working against you, from your point of view, is a very leaky organization - Congress.
As part of your job, you must talk to people like Reyes (D-Texas) and Leahy (D-Vermont) and Specter (D-Rino).
People who would disclose secrets regarding sources and methods, just to get a vote.
And the problem with a few of us getting killed (where the alternative is violating the law as well as sacrificing some very basic values about freedom and the role of government) is..?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.