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

So..?

[mwvdlee]

Chaining everybody up in their homes in straightjackets all day probably helps against terrorist plots too, but that doesn't make it right.

Re:So..?

[Recovering Hater]

Your attitude means the terrorists win.

Re:So..?

[MyLongNickName]

I am for the gov't having the ability to wiretap. I am against the gov't doing this without a proper check to their power.

Re:So..?

[quanticle]

Amen to that. What people don't seem to get in this day and age is that there is no such thing as zero risk. No matter how thoroughly you screen, no matter how thoroughly you eavesdrop, eventually someone somehow will get through. Therefore we need to say, "What is an acceptable risk, taking into account the fact that the lower we set the threshold, the more civil liberties and conveniences we'll be giving up?"

Re:So..?

[Apocalypse111]

If we are so scared of a terrorist attack that we must suspend citizen rights in order to feel safer (regardless of how much real security is actually bought at that expense) then the terrorists have ALREADY won.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin (disputed, possibly Richard Jackson)

Re:So..?

[Reason58]

Does this mean that you unwilling to give up any liberty in exchange for safety? I'm willing to give up a small amount of freedom for a large gain in safety. I am not willing to give up a large amount of freedom for something as effective as the "War on drugs". Especially when I know those new governmental powers will just be turned on me and my children in very short order (if they aren't already).

Re:So..?

[Xonstantine]

Regardless, the laws and policies of the US are a reflection of the majority of people who comprise it. You exactly missed my point. The purpose of things like a Constitution in a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of the minority, since the majority very seldom has problems getting it's will reflected in policies and laws and enforcing them on the minority. The Constitution defines the powers and sets limitations on the Federal government, and in some cases, the state governments. Over time, the Federal government has decided that it's powers are unlimited and has ignored the limitations as defined in what is essentially a legal contract with the citizens of this country. They are in breach of contract, but since they own the courts and they own the guns, who's gonna stop them?

Re:So..?

[DarkVader]

Because the German authorities also cooperate to intercept communications by Americans - it's a mutual aid agreement. The British actually are used more often, and are the ones listening to US domestic and international calls - it's a way of getting around the Constitution. In exchange, we monitor British traffic for them.

And if you read the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have any provisions limiting it to apply only to Americans. It is prohibitions on what the government may do, and they don't have national restrictions, they apply to the actions of the government.

Re:So..?

[DarkVader]

Yes, it does.

The semi-secret (they've been leaked, but aren't officially talked about) agreements between the US and other countries are two-way.

The British are heavily involved, and the way it works is that the British are given wiretap access to US calls, which is legal under British law - though it breaks US law, the violation is occurring in Britain, beyond the reach of US law. They then report back to the US government what they heard. We do the same for their domestic calls, and give them the results.

It's a nasty little mess.

Re:So..?

[DarkVader]

That is absolutely true for me.

If the increase in safety cannot be gained without a decrease in essential liberty, then my choice would be to accept the increased risk, not trade away my freedom.

And especially in the case of "terrorism" there is NO valid reason to destroy any liberty in the name of safety, as the risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent. It's barely a blip if you look at the actual risk numbers. The only effect on my life terrorism has had is the massive overreaction creating problems for me - which is far worse than the terrorism itself could ever hope to be.

Re:So..?

[ArcherB]

I wasn't talking about the article so much as the sentiment expressed by this thread regarding suspending rights to "secure freedom".

I understand, but it seems that people are so interested in handcuffing our government that they confuse foreign intelligence with domestic spying and try to shut it all down.

After the attacks that occurred six years ago today, everyone was asking, "how did this happen?", "why were we not able to stop it?", and "what are we going to do to prevent it from happening again?". I remember administration staffers being grilled by congressional committees pointing out things like a PDB titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack the US" and Michael Moore documentaries trying to place blame rather than trying to find resolutions. Can you blame the administration for taking action?

Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm. They equate evesdropping and datamining to kicking down doors and rummaging through drawers looking for something that might be considered illegal. They are convinced that a government that taps calls made to Afghanistan is the same as Orwell's Big Brother. Just read some of the comments posted here that are comparing intercepting German emails to Turkey to turning the US into a barbed wire laden police state. No one is suggesting that. If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?

I fear that these people are not aware of what we are up against. There are attacks being planned that make Beslan look like a school yard scuffle. I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable. Just because I don't care if the government listens to my phone call to Dominoes doesn't mean I'll be OK with having to pass through a checkpoint to buy groceries. The idea is to allow the government do their job with as little inconvenience to me as possible. The idea that someone may be eavesdropping (although the chances are virtually nil) will not change what I say or limit me in the least. I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.

BTW, I like your sig! The sentiment is very similar to my own.

Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind. I'm just tired of the brownshirt downmodding that I see here way too often. If you disagree, don't silence me, tell me why and state your case. That's what free speech is all about!

Re:So..?

[MrNaz]

Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm.

I assure you it does, and it does. And a government that intends to relegate the vast majority of the population to the status of "labor pool" has an interest in what *everybody* has to say about it. The best way to stop revolutionary dissent is catching it while it's still dinner-table conversation. For instance, imagine if the British had known of a certain little Tea Party that was being planned while it was still just in the stages of two guy chatting about a nice idea. Had the British colonial powers had ubiquitous eavesdropping throughout the colonial lands, history would have turned out very, very differently. Of course, your sentiments indicate that you trust the government implicitly, and will likely consider this view to be crazy left wing hippie talk.

I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it.

You can't be serious? You're either too young or too dumb to understand the concept of a slippery slope. You're also obviously unaware of the fact that more innocent people die in car crashes every year than died in terrorist attacks in all of the 20 century. Where are the billions in declaring war on people who don't wear seat belts? Would you support police cameras in your garage to check that you were wearing your seatbelt before you left your driveway? Perspective is a wonderful thing. Pity you don't have any.

Re:So..?

[Apocalypse111]

Can you blame the administration for taking action?
I can't blame them for taking action in general, but its the types of actions that they take that I take issue with. I don't want to handcuff the government per se, but rather I want there to be leash or fence beyond which it cannot operate except in times of dire need. The systems we had in place prior to the events of 6 years ago were adequate to forewarn us of the impending attack, if only the individual intelligence agencies had the means to share the data they had collected (as discovered during that same post-attack questioning you mentioned). To bridge this communications gap, the Department of Homeland Defense was created - if that department was doing only the job it was created for in that respect, I believe we'd be fine.

Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm.
I realize this, my beef with the system comes from the fact that all of these systems have little to no non-executive oversight (FISA circumvention, etc), so the potential for abuse by a lone individual with an agenda is much higher.

If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?
Having the locks on the doors is my choice. I could remove them if I so chose. I can't just tell anyone who may or may not be monitoring my use of the telecommunications infrastructure to cut it out.

I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable.
I'm of the opinion, given my above responses, that giving up our rights in unnecessary - I think the old maxim "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" holds true here. It is often bandied about that we fight to preserve our way of life - but are not these rights a fundamental part of that way of life? Further, when the time comes that we no longer need those protections, who is to say that the government will give those rights we traded back? Further still, if one listens to how certain pundits ("far right personalities" if you will) want to change the world into a fascist state, then removing any of our rights is a step in that direction regardless of the reasons for which they are relinquished, and should be opposed.

I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.
The scary part is, with all the secrecy surrounding many of these abuses (and indeed, this administration's policies in general), we don't know what, if any, more secret abuses might have taken (or might be taking!) place. Also, in the case of a lone individual, you are only looking at a conspiracy of one, and that's a tough nut to crack. I believe this in itself is a good argument for a more transparent government.

Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind.
Not at all!

Re:So..?

[Jtheletter]

If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?

False analogy. Putting locks on my own doors doesn't require me giving up any of my rights.
I am not against the government using FISA to intercept communications to fight CRIME ('terrorism' is vague, and overly subjective) but I am AGAINST the government doing so without warrants, going against their own prescribed checks and balances. The FISA court was set up to handle this type of thing. The FISA court was sidestepped by the current administration for years before it came to light. The government should do what it can to maintain national security, however it should do so LEGALLY.

There are attacks being planned that make Beslan look like a school yard scuffle.

Oh really? Proof? Maybe you ought to report that to someone if you have information of a national security nature. Or are you just using vague scare tactics to push policy?

I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it.

I, and many others, are NOT willing.

I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.

Really? Hell to pay? Voluntary resignations and the firing/court martials of low level NCOs is hardly hell being paid. Maybe if someone responsible for OKing various abuses were ever charged, or [gasp] impeached then your sentiment would be comforting. From what we have seen thus far, a wrist slap is the most anyone has gotten. Case in point: although the FISA court was the ONLY legal way to tap certain international calls it was sidestepped completely by this administration. In total defiance of the law. Name one conviction of someone involved in ordering or executing those wiretaps without going through FISA. Zero accountability. It matters not whether the President, his legal council, or anyone other than SCOTUS thought the law should be different. It was defined, it was breached as defined, not one bit of accountability.

Re:So..?

[Gregour]

The problem is that power corrupts. The people implementing these laws may have the best of intentions, but some day, someone will use these laws to silence an opponent, for political gain, etc. Any law has the potential to be abused, but many of the anti-terror laws written post-9/11 make it far too easy to infringe on an American citizens constitutional rights while make it far to difficult for that citizen to fight back.

Re:So..?

[Tsiangkun]

I HAD government issued photo Identification on me.
I was trying to fly from Oakland to Detroit.

I could not produce a drivers license.
I did not drive to the airport.
I did not intend to drive the plane.
I did not intend to drive on vacation.

I was not allowed to proceed. I HAD TO go get a special
semi - strip seach before I was handed papers that would let me travel.

This was December 2006, in the United States of America.

MY right to travel without papers was infringed.
You have no point.

Well they would say that, wouldnt they?

[TechnoBunny]

Obviously even more anti-privacy laws will make the US even safer, and do more to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to even less than the...erm...none over the last 6 years.....

Those who would give up...

[kurisuto]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

--Benjamin Franklin

I'm sure it is

[DoctorPepper]

Just like eavesdropping on conversations helped the KGB find and arrest dissidents in the (former) Soviet Union.

Which we appear to be heading towards faster and faster with each passing day!

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

Hello, Abdul?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Hello! Abdul? yi number-se cellphone qal nai karth, yo shaitan-ki-walla maal ki por. paavi yimail 2048 bit bath kaaq me da![*]

[*] That is Pashtun for, "Don't call me in my cell phone, the Satanists are on to it. just send emails using 2048 bit encryption."

NY Times did not report that

[guanxi]

The NY Times reported that the Director of National Intelligence, Gen. Mike McConnell, *claimed* that the law helped. It's a claim by an official with a vested interest.

That doesn't make it false (or true), but it's much different than a statement of fact.

Who's against eavesdropping with oversight?

[Vellmont]

Very few people are against court sanctioned and oversought eavesdropping. What people are upset about is eavesdropping without warrants, on US citizens. As far as I can tell from the very brief article, this isn't a case where warrantless wiretapping, or data mining occoured.

Future?

[Ace905]

Future of privacy? Your privacy is already completely gone. You gave it up to find the terrorists, remember?

Sure, there's no such thing as a 'terrorist' - but at least you're getting cheap oil out of Afghanistan. I mean Iraq. I mean more expensive.

Targeted or dragnet?

[Chris Burke]

Eavesdropping on potential terrorists -- assuming "potential" means "suspected" not just "hypothetically possible" -- is all well and good. That's exactly the kind of thing government law enforcement should be doing. That's how law enforcement succeeds in catching real criminals.

If they're claiming this was part of a Carnivore/Echelon style dragnet, then hurray for catching the one tuna in a net bursting with dolphins.

The article mentions listening in on the members of a specific terrorist group, so I'm taking that to mean they already had suspects, and surveilling these suspects allowed them to discover the plot. I.e. the targeted search that is good.

However you can tell in articles like this that they want you to believe that this justifies extended surveillance powers, in particular the we-should-be-able-to-spy-on-anyone-any-time kind.

The article also mentions FISA and how Bush is trying to extend the law that will expire. It is very important to remember that the whole problem with Bush's program was that he couldn't even be bothered to go to the FISA court to get back-dated warrants. The best explanation for why that I've heard so far being that the program was spying on so many people that it was infeasible to actually get a warrant for each one. If they can't take the time to get a warrant for each one, then they certainly couldn't have taken the time to establish probably cause that any of these people were terrorists, and ergo they wouldn't have been granted by FISA anyway.

So look at this how it is -- a success for law enforcement, of the traditional pre-USAPATRIOT and pre-NSA-wiretapping kind. Don't see it how they want you too -- as justification for removing what few of our privacy protections remain, and justification for allowing the Executive branch and law enforcement to operate outside the 4th Ammendment.

Cut the crap and you'll be taken seriously.

[Kadin2048]

Your points would carry a lot more weight without the hyperbole. Having a military base in some country, with their permission, isn't "occupying" them.

The term 'occupation' indicates control over territory. We don't 'occupy' Cuba. We have a naval base there, but we don't control the rest of the country. (Unless you think that Castro is just a U.S. puppet. Or something.) To be honest, the world would probably be a significantly safer place if the U.S. did have significant control over several of the countries on that list, but we don't.

You undermine your own point through exaggeration and inflated rhetoric.

Re:Cut the crap and you'll be taken seriously.

[dada21]

Your points would carry a lot more weight without the hyperbole. Having a military base in some country, with their permission, isn't "occupying" them.

It doesn't? So if China had a military base, say in Houston, TX, you would not feel occupied? You'd feel safer?

YOU may not think it is an occupation, but I've visited more than a few dozen countries with U.S. military bases (including Poland, where I have a home not far from the U.S. base in Poznan) and the residents don't understand the point of U.S. troops on their soil, not even for defensive purposes. Almost all of those countries have their own military bodies, and many of the residents near those bases are uncertain about Imperialist nations presenting a military presence in their country. This is from direct conversations I've had in peaceful nations.

The term 'occupation' indicates control over territory.

I can basically agree with this, but I don't think that's what the other countries necessarily feel. Just because U.S. troops might have been invited by past regimes, does not meant that they are there because the citizens of a nation wanted them there. Occupation may be by force, or it might be welcomed because a leader who uses force welcomed the new regime for whatever purpose. In either way, those directly facing the military base as a neighbor are not usually happy with the troops that are there.

We don't 'occupy' Cuba. We have a naval base there, but we don't control the rest of the country. (Unless you think that Castro is just a U.S. puppet. Or something.) To be honest, the world would probably be a significantly safer place if the U.S. did have significant control over several of the countries on that list, but we don't.

Occupation does not generally mean direct control by the troops or the military. In many cases, the control comes from the leaders of the occupying country over the leaders of the occupied country, even if it is not open contact with communique available to the citizens of either countries.

The U.S. doesn't have control over any nation it tried to maintain control over. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, so why would you feel that the world would be a better place if the U.S. had tried to control anyone else?

SHIFTING THE FOCUS!

[UncleGizmo]

No rational person would disagree that these eavesdropping methods don't work. But the proponents of this legislation have been focusing the conversation on a "no eavesdropping = potential danger" argument.

However, the discussion by opponents has not been against eavesdropping, but that with current law, there is no OVERSIGHT by any governmental agency of the eavesdropping. Prior laws always allowed eavesdropping ... but they also required a court order (to allow for oversight and transparency, a key element to a free democracy). The only cogent argument against this oversight -- that sometimes there isn't enough time to get a court order -- was shown to be patently incorrect, as the prior laws allowed for immediate eavesdropping (as long as a court order was eventually filed).

I'm too lazy to provide links, but it has been documented both that a) during the time of the court-order requirement, almost no court order requests were denied (something like 2 in 17,000); and b) during the non-court order law there were some thousands of eavesdropping events that were shown to have no connection to terrorism.

The reason, plain and simple, for articles like this is that the US administration is fearmongering to push the strategy that they do not want oversight into what they are doing. This is a bad thing. Democracy dies behind closed doors. Don't be fooled. Keep the focus where it should be!

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

Terrorist-free East Germany

[Doc Ruby]

Soviet East Germany had practically no terrorist activities. It did have about a third of its people spying on everyone else. Universal wiretaps, keeping political order by terrorizing them.

Spying on our own people without even a warrant is terrorism. It's political control by fear and threat of force.

Under Bush, the terrorists have won everything, because Bush is a terrorist. Even in Germany, people aren't safe from Bush's terrorism. Bush is indeed the greatest terrorist of them all. By any measure, including by body count (the way terrorists terrorize) and by how much liberty he's destroyed.