Slashdot Mirror
White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now
austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.
...that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies.Which just goes to show you that they never had any intention to stop wiretapping, just to throw a big tantrum over it and then go back to spying on Americans the good old fashioned way, illegally.
Retroactive immunity is now a moot point. Previously they could argue that they weren't aware that they were operating illegally. Now they surely have no such defence. I'm sure some of the lawyers on Capitol Hill will start using words like 'wilfully' now.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information.
Riiiiiiiiight. If you can't illegally wiretap, how could you possibly know what you missed? Besides, there is a perfectly good FISA court still around; you can even wiretap and get a warrant 72 hours later.
Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
"Bush has said he would hold out for a permanent overhaul of the 1978 surveillance law."
Wow, what a brilliant idea! Too bad Bush didn't suggest that BEFORE authorizing an illegal program and goading the telecom companies into going along with it. Had he done so he wouldn't need to get retroactive immunity for them.
I think everybody understands that in the height of an emergency tough decisions have to be made, but the next priority should have been to move for revision to the FISA legislation, not keep the thing secret for several years and then try to bail out the organizations involved once people found out the law was being broken. Don't like constraints of the FISA law? Conform to it, revise the legislation, or break the law and face the legal consequences. There is no other option for a person holding office who has sworn an oath to uphold the law. Well, there isn't supposed to be.
Bush has his new Attorney General lying to back him up, but they can't even keep their stories straight:
It's obvious that it's Bush's fault the PAA expired without extension:
The bottom line is that Bush's own Attorney General just admitted that he and Bush and the rest are repeatedly breaking the law:
What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?
--
make install -not war
If the Whitehouse can bully Congress into passing retroactive immunity to the telecoms for warrantless wiretapping, then they also by extension are exhonerated. So, they get to get a free pass for breaking the law without directly asking Congress to give it to them.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Coming soon: a counterstrike map that accurately portrays the White House and surrounding grounds. Of course it's an assassination map. Suck it Bush, you're the only president in the last 40 years (yes, including Nixon) that if I knew I could get completely scot free with killing that I'd have to seriously think about it.
The sad part? There is no promise that any democratic administration would stop this.
Why? Because it's fascism, or, as one of the guys who invented fascism (Mussolini) caled it: Corporatism.
The American Empire is dying and it's a sad thing to watch it act, as WS Burroughs said in 1984, as the single greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
We were not completely surprised by the 9-11 hijackers, the problem was we didn't act on what we did know. Even then we knew. We knew without the Patriot Act, we knew without wholesale spying on the American public, we knew without the Protect America Act. We knew and did nothing. So now the solution is to spy on Americans. Makes almost as much sense as being attacked by terrorists operating out of Afghanistan and responding by attacking Iraq.
Only a Republican would think it makes sense to fight terrorism by monitoring my 83 year old mom's phone calls.
And, just in case this dust up has interfered with the intelligence community's ability to monitor the activity of Americans, the bake sale has been postponed until next week because the lady running it broke her hip and mom change her hair appointment to 11 am this week because Marge's family is flying in from Montana. And dad still can't figure out why his pineapple plants keep dying in the front yard. Now you're up to date.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It's ok when they get a fisa warrant, and not ok wehen they decide they don't need one.
Somebody should troll a terrorist attack, get caught, and then expose the whole mess of no fisa warrant.
Money is the root of all evil?
Will be fought one vote at a time. If the telecom providers didn't do anything wrong when they assisted the wiretaps then they do not need legal protection from congress. By moving to protect the telecom providers Congress is implicitly admitting that they acted in ways that are probably illegal.
load "$",8,1
Because the previous rubber-stamp system left a paper-trail (albeit one they could claim was "classified for reasons of national security") as to who they were spying on and why, and thus had some amount of accountability, no matter how tiny.
The new system does not.
If there's anything this administration hates, it's accountability.
...and just when I thought the administration couldn't be any more open about breaking the law and violating my civil liberties. Honestly, does this piss everybody else off as much as it does me? I'm all for America, and I think we have a good number of good things going on over here, but this is getting ridiculous - we have these controls in place (the representatives of the people) to limit the power of the executive branch, and it's as if the administration doesn't even hear them.
I don't know what's worse, not having any input at all, or knowing that it won't be used in any decisions in the end anyway.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
Since the current congress is too spineless, too complicit, and too full of Republicans, I think we'll have to pin our hopes on the next President telling his AG to investigate and pursue criminal charges against those responsible in the Bush Administration and in Congress.
That definitely wouldn't be Clinton (too much of an insider) and it wouldn't be McCain (he's shown he's a good boy after all), and Paul hasn't got a snowball's chance. I can only hope that Obama wouldn't pull a Ford and pardon Bush "so the country can move on".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
My speculation is this:
You get a warrant when you want to spy on SOMEONE. You don't get a warrant when you want to capture all inbound and outbound (from the country) telephone traffic and put it through your NSA analyzer supercomputer thingymajig looking for suspicious activity. You see, for something like this to work, you need a very large sample of data to compare to. You will never be given a warrant for little Felipe who wants to call mommy back in Italy to talk about spaghetti recipes. But you need that data as a base line.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
However, the fact that the telecoms are having "understandable misgivings" after the collapse of the immunity bill tells us all we need to know about how their corporate lawyers view the situation. If we're lucky, the truth will get declassified in 25 years, but I doubt it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I bet that's why the wiretaps are here. So the government can read the forum posts, IM conversations, IRC chat logs, and even Slashdot posts, of liberals that oppose the government. I bet all liberals could find themselves on one of those "Watch Lists" soon, just for expressing their 1st Amendment rights!
Spying to find "terrorists" is just the pretext the government is using to wiretap the homeland (and why FISA, it should have been called HISA, Homeland Intelligence Surveillance Act), so they can find not terrorists, but rather innocent people who criticize the government on the Internet through blogs, IM, IRC, etc.
So that's where our tax money is going: paying the NSA to read all the rants on the government (most of them are the real truth to, how ironic!)
The problem isn't with the spying - like you say there are many cases where it is needed. The problem is that the checks and balances from the oversight aspects are being compromised. The Federal Government can spy on anyone they like and even get a FISA warrent for it after the fact in cases of emergencies. The problem is that the Administration branch of the government thinks that even that is too much and want to remove that check and balance (or continue to ignore it). Spy away, but damn well be accountable *when* it is abused.
Shh.
Yeah, like an announcement by our FearFUL Leader was needed, for us to know they are tapping our communications.
There, I corrected that for you. Bush, like anyone else still afraid of "terrorists", is a huge pussy.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Anyone against these wiretaps is suspect, and probably should be placed on the wiretap list? The language of the fourth amendment is clear and straight forward. The executive branch, the phone companies, and congress need to reread it a few times until they understand it. When they start arresting people for expressing concerns over the loss of our constitutional guaranteed rights, it will be too late. Forums like Slashdot etcetera will disappear. People will be afraid to post. Wiretaps without a warrant and fear of arrest will see to that.
Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and power grabs are wholly unnecessary), and Bush and company are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation--you know, one of those primary functions of the Presidency--to cover their own asses. But, then, this story is at least as old as the Iraq War* and the bullshit about WMDs.
*Note: There might be older examples, but the Iraq War one was exceptionally egregious.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I've got to disagree with you there. The dude's got cojones so large, I'm amazed he can still walk.
Look at it this way. His attorney general when he first announced the program has left the post in disgrace. Congress refused to pass an act providing retroactive immunity to the telcos who first participated in program. The ACLU and EFF have filed lawsuits because of the wiretapping program. People across the county have spoken out against the program. And still he announces that the warrantless wiretapping has resumed. Sounds pretty brazen to me.
On the one hand, I want to believe that he is doing it with the best of intentions but is just to stupid to realize the long-term implications of such a thing. On the other hand, I am very, very afraid that he knows exactly what he is doing. In either case, this program is a (tm) Bad Thing and needs to end, permanently.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
No amount of intelligence will ever make you "safe". Warrantless wiretaps will, however, make you a slave to self-censorship. When the first time comes to you when you hold your tongue, because the government may be listening, warrantless wiretaps will no longer seem like a good idea. Freedom means that you can live your life unscrutinized until there is actionable cause to suspect you have committed a crime. Then it's time to get a warrant and investigate, not before the fact. Freedom does not mean spy on everyone all the time to keep them honest. Now, do you want to live in freedom or not? Whatever your answer is, do not presume to tell me that I should live in fear and repression so you might be "safe". That decision is not yours to make.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
You're forgetting that there's a substantial body of evidence, including testimony from involved FBI agents, that we did know what the 9/11 guys were planning, based on information collected through old-fashioned police work, without the need for warrantless wiretaps or any of the other powers granted or assumed by the President since then.
There is a vast difference between "we must operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and the law" and "we should do nothing".
The problem is that if he's not impeached, he gets away free. If he's impeached, and we fight this spying, then we'll let the next people know that they can't do this.
If we ignore this, not only will our next leaders continue it, but Bush will go unpunished.
He's by far the worst president the USA has ever had. Not just in what he's personally done, but in the lack of respect for law that he's instilled into the office and various three-letter-agencies.
If, on the other hand, he was stripped of power, even a day before the end, not allowed to pardon anyone, and made liable for criminal lawsuits... Ideally, he'll get tortured in Gitmo, that would be the ultimate payback for the sell-out.
That baseline data is also what you need to monitor everyone in the country at all times. Especially activists groups of the sort that might cut into corporate profits.
But hey maybe your right. Maybe they're looking for who funds the terrorists, oh wait they already know that (cause Bush and the Royal Family are BFF). They're looking for terrorists in this country. Ohh no wait, that wouldn't work, it would be stupid to communicate over phones or hotmail. No trained terrorist would be that dumb and you don't need the data itself anyway. You just need the points of interest then you can monitor those points (such as cell phone numbers). But then theres disposable cell phones, and OMG the most diabolical of all... snail mail, newspapers, etc. etc.
John Nash might find the red spys, but the NSA is just looking for dirt on anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. Its been done before, thats why we have FISA in the first place.
Speculate all you want, but its just as likely they're looking for Rainbow Ponies as Terrorist in the 'Tubes.
LAST TIME - pay attention.
It's wholesale data-mining.
Spying in the Death Star: The AT&T Whistle-Blower Tells His Story
Mark Klein = Patriot
Former AT&T technician
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview
In room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, California is a SPLITTER that duplicates ALL traffic and diverts it by the way of a proprietary black box to an unnamed acronymed agency.
Mark Klein called it a "Big Brother Machine".
It can't be more clear than that.
For all the folks that still don't get IT, good God!, go back to sleep, and or, quit posting drivel.
~hylas
He's going to get away free. There's nothing that can be done to Bush himself in any practical sense. Possibly some lawsuits after he leaves office, but I doubt even that. It sucks, I know, but that's life.
That's not to say nothing can or will be done. The Democrats have finally started making hay out of wreckage of the Bush administration--letting the surveillance bill lapse because it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms is a good start. That allows lawsuits to proceed against them that, over the next few years, will make clear the scope of the domestic spying that was going on.
To the extent that anything will change, it will be because a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress will look for a lot of legislative achievements in the first 100 days, riding a still-fresh wave of disgust, that have to do with (very loudly) making certain things illegal, restoring and strengthening FISA, and cleaning up the civil service. More than impeaching or imprisoning Bush, suing and jailing the civil servants who carried out his orders will put the fear into those who happily break the law under colour of executive authority.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Sounds pretty brazen to me.
It's not like any lawsuit can do anything to him. He's got immunity. And it's not like he cares what people speak out against.
Courage requires risking something. Bush's merely an obstinate simpleton, something a coward can easily be. As long as he doesn't risk getting smacked in the face about it.
I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment.
This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having their actions reviewed by a judge, and without telling you.
How would you feel then? Personally, I'd start to feel like it resembled Nazi Germany or Cold War Russia.
What we ought to be asking is, why hasn't the supreme court acted?
Hey, who is on the supreme court these days, anyway?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not that it matters. The congressional GOP will continue to obstruct investigations and enable the Decider, and the Party leadership's wishes are more important than those of the People, especially People who are not rich and powerful contributors.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I beg to disagree, Impeachment is as important now as it ever was, and should be pursued (IMHO) even after the present administration has left office.
Why? Because the basic purpose of impeachment is not political theater, throwing the bums out, or any of the other nonsense that is commonly cited. Impeachment is about investigating plausible claims of wrong doing by high ranking officials and if the claims are true meting out appropriate consequences. We are in a very risky point in our history, but not because of the offenses against our constitution presently being perpetrated, but rather because of the precedent we setting by ignoring them. The third amendment
is interesting in that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the present administration hasn't been plausibly accused of violating. And yet we do nothing.
So turn the question around: if we aren't going to impeach now, when would we? And what sort of message does that send to future administrations, of either party?
--MarkusQ
Nope. Under existing law, neither of those is a problem... for legal surveillance with a legitimate national security authorization.
This is about a coverup for administration crimes, nothing else.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.