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."
Dupe.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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
Last week, he also said that, if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".
Here's a quote from the interview with El Paso Times:
Q. So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?A. That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing.
What's this guy smoking? Or maybe it is a threat to the members of congress à la the film, Enemy of the State.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
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/
"U.S. National Intelligence" -- Hmm, isn't that like an oxymoron?
Look how much the man speaks, compared to how little the interviewer speaks. There are no slips in this interview, and there are a very large amount of omissions. Of course, all the omissions are of things that would be blatantly illegal, and we do know some of them are occurring. (Surveillance of all American phone calls at the switch level, for example. The taps are in, even if unused.) It only makes me exceptionally curious as to what he's hiding, because I certainly get the impression he's hiding something.
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.
Not a sworn statement. Unless it gets put in an affidavit or elicited at deposition (or trial) it's irrelevant. Many public statements have been made, but there's no accounting for the veracity of them unless they're sworn according to the legal standard. The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals specifically said this at the AT&T (EFF) class action hearing on the Govts. motion to dismiss a couple of weeks ago.
5 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.wma?openelement
0 07.08.16
Transcript here
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A67
Video here
http://www.archive.org/details/gov.courts.ca9.2
EFF here.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005408.php
[....]
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.
Greenwald comments: "McConnell's ties to these companies are so deep and numerous that it really rises to the level of conflict of interest for him to demand -- on national security grounds, no less -- that they be granted full immunity from liability for past illegal acts. He is, in essence, demanding immunity for vast numbers of his former partners, clients, associates and scores of business interests in which he had, if not still has, a substantial stake. This conflict is glaring and extreme, but Democrats said nothing about it when granting prospective immunity to this industry at his insistence. Thus far, they have also said nothing in the face of McConnell's demands that this immunity now be made retroactive as well."
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.
And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.
Well, the real reason is that OBL went way over his satphone minutes. Too many text messages. He was real pissed at Cingular (and his son). The whole monitoring thing was just an elaborate way for him to get out of his bill.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.
By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?
America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.
So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.