Eavesdropping Helpful Against Terrorist Plot [UPDATED]

AcidPenguin9873 writes "The New York Times reports that the U.S. government's ability to eavesdrop on personal communications helped break up a terrorist plot in Germany. The intercepted phone calls and emails revealed a connection between the plotters and a breakaway cell of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad Union. What does this mean for the future of privacy in personal communications? From the article: '[Director of national intelligence Mike McConnell's] remarks also represent part of intensifying effort by Bush administration officials to make permanent a law that is scheduled to expire in about five months. Without the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. McConnell said the nation would lose "50 percent of our ability to track, understand and know about these terrorists, what they're doing to train, what they're doing to recruit and what they're doing to try to get into this country.'" Update: 09/13 12:59 GMT by J : See followup story.

Comments

The United States welcomes its 51st state: Germany

[dada21]

When did what happens in Germany effect us in the States?

Oh yeah, Germany is one of the 135 countries that we currently occupy. Here is the list:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile
China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote D'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic
Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador
Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana
Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia
Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia
Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique
Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway
Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore
Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden
Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia
Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom
Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

source

Re:Tell Me Again...

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

why anyone talking on a cellular phone across the public airwaves or on a wired phone using the public switched telephone network would have any expectation of privacy? Because, in the US, it's the law.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 >
2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

Re:So..?

[corbettw]

And if you read the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have any provisions limiting it to apply only to Americans. You say that as if you've read the thing, when it's obvious from your conclusion you've done no such thing. Go look it up and count how many times the phrase "the people" is used, then ask yourself: who are these "people" they keep writing about?

Hint: they ain't Pakistani.

Re:So..?

[Xonstantine]

From a libertarian website:
McCain-Feingold makes it a felony for a "corporation" (company, grassroots organization, an incorporated blog or Internet site that takes subscribers) to mention in advertising or on a web site any Congressman within two months of an election. And there are hundreds of pages of complex election "reform" laws that came out of McCain-Feingold just like this one. Given the complexity, organizations may simply decide to walk away from the political arena, fearing having to fight a lawsuit brought by a vengeful government. Net effect? Shutting down grassroots organizations, abridging the First Amendment, prevention of public discussion of voter issues.
* Radio talk shows are getting in trouble for expressing opinions on a topic, being told that what they are doing is essentially a campaign contribution. Net effect? Preventing public discourse on voter issues.
* Note that the news media has no such restrictions. What does this mean? As the media knows which side its bread is buttered on, is it in their best interest to go up against a strong incumbent? Net effect? Issues that could paint the incumbents in a bad light do not get aired in the mainstream media.

Here's another source on McCain-Feingold from a liberal angle:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/14/IN288208.DTL

Oh yeah, "willful" violations of McCain-Feingold are felonies punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Say good-bye to your right to vote or right to own a firearm and ability to get a job in the future. "So what are you in for?"