Slashdot Mirror
FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records
An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports that the FCC won't be investigating the phone record disclosures by communications companies under US government pressure. Despite a congressional request for that probe, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin quashed the inquiry based on comments from National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. 'At issue are reports last year that some big telephone companies allowed the U.S. government access to millions of telephone records for an antiterrorism program. The reports have prompted scrutiny by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, the chairman of a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee, asked Martin to investigate. Markey, of Massachusetts, said McConnell's stance was "unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program."'"
re:""unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program.""
Should read "unsurprising given that this administration is aware that the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of spineless pussies".
There you go.
Republicans too, they may be the same party, but when they controlled both houses and requested details of the various programs, they got the f*** off treatment too.
They're all frightened of being called soft on terror if they don't do whatever the faction in the Whitehouse says (I'm not going to say Bush, because he's some sort of figure head for them, not a person in control, a mascot to rally around).
If Congress can't exert any power in situations like this, what CAN it do?
The problem will not be solved by replacing Republicans with Democrats. It will only change the rationale. Dems will probe for child molesters and music pirates instead of terrorists, but they're not going to loosen government's grip.
The problem will be solved when Americans finally ask, "How the fuck can government regulate our telephone lines when we have a First Ammendment?"
.. don't use a landline then or a "subscription" mobile :)
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
.. Amdocs , an Israel company and has ALL records perfect for phone data mining. Great for the intelligence community. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUXFHON_v9o Still want to have a SUBSCRIPTION service where they can know everything about you? I strongly recommend VoIP abroad or subscriptionless mobiles if you value your privacy.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests. Getting the big money out of politics would be a very good thing, though I don't see any easy path to doing so... However, there is a difference in relative priorities, and it is clear that the neo-GOP is completely focused on the money, whereas the old GOP had and the Democrats still have some other principles as well.
Since it is very clear that privacy considerations have zero traction with the current American government, we basically have two options: Can we evolve in a more constructive direction (which means the neo-GOP must be removed first of all), or does there have to be a violent revolution? It seems very clear that certain governments (especially in Europe) are deliberately trying to evolve in the direction of favoring individual rights and privacy. If you believe that freedom and democracy confer competitive advantages, and if you think they are linked to such rights as privacy, then you must conclude that they are moving in a constructive and more competitive direction.
Revolution? Well, sometimes violent revolutions cannot be avoided. The problem there is that the outcome is never certain. On the average, the new systems are better than the old ones--but that's a big historical average, and there are plenty of times when things get worse before they get better. The one thing certain about a real revolution is that lots of people get hurt, even killed. I don't like that, and you can't convince me it's the only way to make things better. We're human beings, not mindless beasts that can only evolve mindlessly.
Me, I'd prefer to believe that just getting back to the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be a big step forward after the last few years. Some of the real Republicans might work for that, but not the neo-GOP politicians that still control what's left of the GOP.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Wtf? Dude, are you going to keep reposting this comment with the middle portion changed to every privacy story? I have mod points but I am not entirely sure if I should mod you down. I will let the other mods decide. :|
The FCC has been heavily biased toward the policies of this administration, at least while under Michael Powell's leadership. Now that the FCC has given up their chance to fake an investigation, a more respectable organization can perform a thorough, honest investigation.
Congress is going to respond to this continued emasculation with a painstakingly measured combination of harsh words and sulking.
A big part of this debate has to do with many factors.
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there).
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
The first issue we'll just not discuss, since it's really irrelevant in the overall discussion. Basically, if your decision to NOT allow this type of surveillance is based solely on the fact it's Bush in the Whitehouse, then you are being irrational.
Second, can national security trump personal privacy and if so, how much personal privacy? History shows that, in the United States, during times of war or national crisis, personal privacy gets trumped by national security for what was deemed at the time as being for the public good. For example, Bill Clinton issued an executive order on February 9, 1995 allowing the attorney general to conduct warrantless searches in the interest of national security. Likewise, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans to prevent them from spying or otherwise being a nuisance.
Third and fourth, just how much is too much? Well, surveillance in this program was more interested in envelope information such as from where the call is coming from and where it is going to. Phone numbers, without any information attached to them, is basically public record. I could pick up my phone and make a call to a random number right now, that's public information.
Now, who you call is another story. Should the phone companies be tracking this information at all? Well, yes, they use it for billing. Who called who and for how long determines how much they charge you, or at the very least how much it costs them for you to make that phone call. They need this information to run their business. Now the question is, who does this information belong to? You? The telephone company? Well, both! You need this information, possibly, for your own personal information. However, as mentioned, the telco needs it for billing. Since you're using their services, they have the right to this information.
With that in mind, the telco has the right to use that information as they wish, no matter what any Terms of Service say, because you agree to their service and as part of that service, they need to gather said information in order to get you to pay for that service. So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
So now the question is, should the FCC investigate this activity? Well, technically they could, but the question is whether it's worth it. The question is whether the NSA broke any law under FISA (pointing back to the first link of Clinton's executive order) allows this type of surveillance. But that's not up to the FCC to decide, but for the court to decide. So, is the Congress suing the administration in order to obtain this information? Because that's the only way to properly obtain all the necessary information. Ask your congressman. Because I bet you the Democrats would lose that one in Federal court and they know it. Which is why they chose to argue this one in the court of public opinion.
The simple fact is that talking on any phone, cellular in particular, is not private. If you think it is you are delluding yourself. As a comm tech in the 80's we routinely monitored voice traffic for amusement purposes. The things you hear are mind boggling! People talk on the phone about the most private and illegal things. Why oh why would anyone ever discuss something on an unsecure medium that they don't want anyone to know is beyond me. I remember years ago some congressional members cell call with some embarrassing content was recorded and made public. Yeah...it was illegal and the people that recorded it were charged....but still, why would anyone thinks that a phone call is private. It doesn't matter whether the administration and congress ban monitoring or not. It will still happen. The only difference then is it wont be admissable in court. But then if you're a member of a terrorist organization bent on death and destruction the people listening are planning on sending you to a higher court. :)
>> Getting the big money out of politics would be a very good thing, though I don't see any easy path to doing so...
To get the money out of politics, the best path is to cut taxes and limit governmental power.
Inevitably, many special interests want to petition the government for redress, and that's a pretty important right in itself. If we decide ahead of time who can lobby government and by what means, then it's self-defeating. It's the slippery slope down the "more regulation will produce more freedom" line of thinking. The biggest, richest, most powerful groups will always have the most influence, no matter how you try to disguise it.
I once had hopes for the libertarian wing of the Repubs, but have learned that it's in the nature of democratic government that you can't hold onto power while simultaneously giving it up. I finally realized I could do more good by persuading people to think clearly about freedom, than by, y'know, voting.
BTW, I had similar hopes for the Dems back in the 60's & 70's, too. Back then I thought "liberal" meant that when in doubt, you err on the side of permissiveness. But over the years, I realized that it just meant passing a bunch of rules to make us live more like "liberals". Fuck that.
Removing the old useless cruft of the winner-takes-all voting system would be a good step towards break up the two party regime and introducing new dynamics.
Too bad this would undermine the power of the two big parties, so they have no interest in changing the status quo.
Maybe getting a formal refusal to investigate from the FCC is somehow a necessary preliminary to getting to the bottom of this nonsense. I hope so.
Come on folks let's move on this. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there are people out there who will be only to happy to testify in detail about what has been done and why and are just waiting for someone to ask. .
National Security? Betcha not. Anyone with a very long memory will recall that the Nixon administration's first ploy in trying to elude Watergate was to invoke National Security. After that was laughed off, they switched to executive privilege. Have we learned nothing? The best way to deal with miscreants in high places is to expose the facts about what they have been doing to the light of day.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
This complacency is the problem. We have the right to expect privacy to be the default. We have the right that it is respected except in the most grave of situations. Lots of things will still happen, people will be mugged. Should we just say, "you shouldn't have been out that late." You should have been fired and prosecuted for your "amusement." Your "amusement" is a lack of respect for others.
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there).
Admitted freely, but irrelevant to this particular issue.
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
Absolutely not. Period.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
Ideally, none. In practice, we already have a system of legal hoops to jump through to allow a carefully controlled, specifically targetted loss of privacy when overwhelming evidence makes it clear that someone intends to do something nasty. And I don't mean the joke we call the FISA court, which should simply not exist. Need a warrant? Come up with some evidence first.
4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
This one has an all-too-easy answser - "All of it". And ironically, too much to use. Casting an overly-broad net to fish for evidence has one major drawback, aside from cost (which we the taxpayers bear, so the government couldn't care less about that) - For every "real" potential terrorist intent on blowing something up, you have hundreds of discontents who may talk about it but would never actaully do anything; tens of thousands who talk about the topic in a way that careful inspection would filter out but still sounds suspicious at first listen; and millions of completely irrelevant conversations about shopping and dating and telemarketing and what to have for dinner, all of which may well throw in the occasional phrase that catches the filters' attention. And the wider the net, the more likely the one real terrorist will manage to evade it (and that doesn't even consider that he'll likely speak the most guardedly).
...After all, if the telcos didn't do anything wrong, they should have nothing to hide.
the telco has the right to use that information as they wish
Wrong! Just because you agreed to their terms of service does not mean you should not expect privacy from them. This is simply hogwash. They have only the right use that information in the process of billing you.
Whether Clinton's executive order is right or not, is relevant, but in the current circumstances, the current administration is so far over the top in these matters, it is imperative to our survival as a democratic society to know the extent of these violations of privacy. Even if it turns out that all of these instances are not breaking the law, they are certainly violations committed by a government out of control against its own populace.
Of course it's not worth it to them, they probably knew about it already, may have participated in it and are beholden (at least the director) to the current administration. Congress should not be delegating it to them as they cannot be trusted to perform properly. This should be performed by an independent committee outside of administration control.
They better fight it on all fronts, including the court of public opinion because the public should be outraged whether or not this is technically illegal. If not it should be.
"Talk to our guy over at NSA, the one you gave the special clearance to. I think those Dems might be up to something. Let's see who they've been talking to."
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
(n/t)
you had me at #!
"I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests."
--
U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.
Most nations, other than the U.S., have private member based national political parties. Parties whose members, directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party. Conversely, prior to U.S. national elections, the DNC's and RNC's collect money at the national level. Besides providing the convenience of one-stop shopping for donors, - working together our national committees can often create a great deal of bipartisanship.
The following quotes are from Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips
Little, Brown and Company 1994, Chapter V, Page 123
"Aspects of Republican-Democratic rivalry can seem as staged and phony as American professional wrestling. Since the 1980's bipartisanship in the United States frequently involves suspending electoral combat to orchestrate some outcome with no great public support, but a high priority among key elites."
"In foreign policy, these issues have included the Panama Canal treaties and NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. On the Domestic front, bipartisan commissions or summit meetings have been used to increase Social Security taxes on average Americans while the income tax rates of the rich were coming down and to raise the salaries of members of Congress."
"The pay raise deal involved walking on so many political eggshells that both sides negotiated an extraordinary side bargain: that the Democratic and Republican National Committees would refuse to fund any congressional candidate who broke the bipartisan agreement and made the pay raise an issue!"
----
Political parties in the U.S., prior to about 1890, used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! Once the organizing influence of political parties has been removed the relative organizing influence of money increases. One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
It Wasn't Always this Way.
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
As found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
I don't disagree. It was wrong. Still and all.....privacy is an illusion. You can bitch all you want but the fact is that without some form of encryption there is no secure communications. From bored comm techs to overly enthusiastic FBI agents and NSA operatives, there is always someone listening. You can expect privacy but you aren't going to get it.
We don't need to get political power. We just need to get BFG9000s.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
How much trust do you have for the average person on the street? Would you trust them to bring your lost wallet back to you with all the cash in it you had? The problem with Government, with Police, with anyone in power, is that they are humans, with all the same flaws as you and me, and then some. Many are nosey, greedy, and most of all, attracted to power and all that it entails. I'm not saying this is universal. The question isn't "what am I trying to hide?" It's "why do you want to know?" Imbalance of knowledge=Imbalance of power
SOMEONE needs to remind the government (including the FCC) that THEY work for US - and that WE want this investigated.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Fixed that for you.
If you include ANY large organization in that sweeping statement (e.g., including corporations), then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, you're just another libertarian nutjob who believes in the Tooth Fairy and that an unregulated free market won't end up screwing over the poor.
The libertarian attitude toward compassion (and the emphasis on lack of it) is one of the reasons why normal, civil folk try and tune rabid libertarians out like the crazy maybe-dangerous bum muttering to himself in the alleyway.
Aside from my anti-libertarian rant, what would you think about a "tax" system where you were still required to pay "taxes", but instead of paying taxes to some central organization like a government, you got to pick which parts of the public infrastructure you wanted to fund? Or maybe some hybrid system where some base part of the taxes went to basic services like fire & local police, basic education, etc, but the money above that amount could be spent anywhere else for the public good as long as you didn't try and keep it?
I strongly agree with you that both parties are broken. Voting between corrupt choice "A" and corrupt choice "B" is not democracy. But the thing that will get the fastest most bipartisan government action is anything one to actually trys to return some real power and control to the people. I read a very interesting story the other day about someone who is facing prison time for trying to get a referendum on the Oklahoma ballot. "If anyone thinking of getting involved as a citizen in the process has to factor in possibly going to prison for 10 years, a lot of husbands and wives will decide that sort of citizen activism isn't for them."http://www.reason.com/news/show/122839.html
I think that if the ability to make real true governmental change through the ballot box has been lost to us, and the powers that be can simply refuse to acknowledge the law, we are left with only two sorry choices. Either we let our country continue to degrade into a Kleptocracy, or we somehow displace the current power structure. So I think that while the problem will become clear to someone who asks "How the fuck can government regulate our telephone lines when we have a First Ammendment?" The solution will be answered when we can answer "What will I do about it?"
We are all just people.
I love it when posts get moderated up simply due to extensive formatting, when it's clear the moderators haven't actually read or considered the inane, ridiculous content.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
Sorry, you're wrong. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html
Here, allow me to quote.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
:(){
Privacy and safety are both illusions. And we do bad things to the people who disillusion us.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
I feel like saying "just so" and ending, but I'll continue by noting that government does have a number of legitimate purposes. Most importantly, governments should set the rules and make sure that all of the players continue to play by the rules. Governments must also mediate between the public and private interest because there are *LOTS* of cases where they are not the same. The quasi-rational libertarians admit that, but they claim it can be addressed by more complete information. Just too bad no one (short of God) has complete information, eh? There are always going to be cases where short-term private interests, for example my private interest to dump my garbage in the ocean or a company's private interest to emit sulfur dioxides, are going to trump the long-term public interests to have functioning oceans and clean air. We're not in 18th century Kansas anymore.
To me, freedom is about meaningful choice, and that means you need to have some real options and sufficient information to choice among them. I'm not sure what the minimum number of choices should be, but I feel like you need at least 4 or 5 of them to keep them competing against each other. (Yes, I think Microsoft should but cut into pieces and set against each other.) In a sense we have that kind of competition between governments, but to make it work on the individual level, we should be free to choose our government, and two thing all governments agree on is that they do *NOT* want the citizens choosing too freely and jumping from one government to a different one that seems better, and they do not want the people to go around changing the government to a different type. The American idea of balance of powers was a pretty clever innovation, and it worked for a long time and did a lot of good, but it looks like the "unitary executive" has finally killed it--while claiming to be "conservatives".
With regards to your proposed suggestion, I don't think it would work. Too many people would pick the same things, and you need balance.
Finally, to close with a twisted sort of joke: As He is described in most monotheistic religions, God has no freedom. If He is "omniscient" and "good", then He would know the full consequences of any action and He would always have to take the best option--and He would therefore have no freedom to choose otherwise. Freedom is in the limbo zone, where you know enough to make meaningful choices, but not so much that your choices are fully constrained.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I've no problems with compassion, no problems with helping the less able, or even the less ambitious. That's why I'm not a libertarian.
For example, I think the purpose of the US Postal Service monopoly is to provide stable jobs for people who aren't very ambitious and/or not very talented. Stated that way, I think it's a good use of money. But if you tell me that it's a good way to deliver the mail, then that's bullshit. If you took away their monopoly, they'd be out of business within a year.
"People talk on the phone about the most private and illegal things"
Yeah, I've heard that people will even be so crazy as admit to committing felonies, like listening in on others' phone conversations. Can you believe it??
Ron Paul said it himself when he mentioned that the US government should be investigated from the outside in.
Libertas in infinitum
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Anyplace USPS is competing with FedEx and UPS, it's being subsidized by its monopoly on first class and junk mail. Where do you think those Post Offices and mailboxes come from? And their express service is okay if you're not very fussy, but that's about it. They do have budget ground service that's.. well it's cheaper than UPS Ground. But Tracking? On-time delivery? Miserable.
Again, I have no problem paying the nice people to walk around all day and deliver junk mail and wear a uniform, if that's what they want to do with their lives. But no, not even close to competing with the private companies; I can't remember the last time I sent anything via USPS when I had a choice.
The problem lies in the fact that information given without a warrant by a third party is perfectly legal. If I, as a federal agent, request information, the company or individual can give that information freely of their own volition. As long as I do not threaten, nothing "underhanded" has happened. And that info can be used in court or any other way I wish. It is only when a individual or entity declines to provide the requested information that a warrant is needed.
Many big corps and individuals feel that they must give the information based on pressure to seem patriotic or just to better serve the bottom line. They give this information perfectly willingly. What is needed to stop this is laws with harsh penalties. The problem is that too many folks are view privacy issues as some sort of philosophical, ideological, or conceptual debate. How then can you determine when privacy is violated if there is no substantial definition.
The data that companies have on a person is not owned by that person, it is owned by the company. And that is the essence of the problem. What we need is laws that allow the individual to retain that information as their personal property, not the company. The individual may choose to allow that the use of that property by the company for purposes of conducting business with that company, but outside of the normal and reasonable activity of commerce, that property cannot be used with out the individual giving up his various rights (ie property rights of ownership and use, the right to remain silent, etc.)
You can refuse the police access to your dwelling because it is your property, unless they have a warrant. If you rent, then you have less rights, because the owner can decide to allow the police inside. But without a warrant, they cannot enter the building that you hold the title to without permission. If we had laws in place that forced companies to hold your information and personal data without having to relinquish ownership to that company, then this would not be an issue. This would allow the problem to once again be a constitutional issue of "illegal search and seizure".
Mind you, this is just a simplistic way I have defined the idea, but I think you should be able to see the advantageous (and disadvantageous) to such a law. As it stands, unless the administration open threatened the companies, nothing illegal has taken place.
He was a lawyer from the Bush/Chenney '00 election campaign and his wife is one of Chenney's aides. He is by all accounts, in the pocket of the president.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I would be willing to settle for a party that's "soft on terrorism", if only we could get rid of the party that actively encourages it with Al Qaeda's star recruitment poster boy, George Bush. Don't you know they must have pics of him in an Uncle Sam outfit all over the Middle East saying, "I want YOU to to join Islam's most popular terrorist front!"
Sounds like people who write private matters in their emails.