Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-we-hear-you-now dept.

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.

22 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. How do they know? by duffetta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?

    1. Re:How do they know? by lorg · · Score: 1, Interesting

      OUTSOURCING. They had someone else do the wiretapping for them. Just like they don't use "harsh interrogation" techniques themselves they get someone else to do it for them. Same here .. They missed the information and then had to trade, buy or acquire it somehow from some other friendly agency.

    2. Re:How do they know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ongoing investigations are covered by the laws in effect when the investigation started. This means that if they started monitoring a phone number last month, the can continue to monitor the conversations. Also, if they discover some reason to establish a new investigation, under the current law, they can start monitoring immediately and ask for permission up to 72 hours later.

      The house would have been happy to extend "Protect America" but not make it permanent. Bush said he would veto an extension.

      In reality, I believe the situation boils down to the Bush administration not wanting the paper trail they get with the FISA court where you have to ask, and you are always told yes, but they've made a paper trail of what you've asked to monitor.

      It is pretty clear that right now all conversations going through the phone systems are recorded. Some are erased after an hour, some are erased after a year. I'm not even sure this is a bad thing --- it might have been pretty useful to have a copy of all phone calls made in the USA for the 3 days prior to 9/11.

      This being slashdot, we should talk about how we'd do it, not how it is a profound intrusion into our privacy, or how the gubberment is lying to us.

    3. Re:How do they know? by Cocophone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That is why there are warrants. The Government can already start listening and then get a warrant after the fact. There is no excuse for wiretaps without warrants.

      If they are not able to get a warrant, then who exactly are they spying on?

    4. Re:How do they know? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was

      That is the White House line and its a lie. Existing authorizations continue to be in force for a year. That takes us past the next inauguration.

      The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.

      The issue here is not providing immunity to the telcos, it is providing immunity to the Administration. They want to be able to shred all the evidence of their criminal activities before a Democrat takes over. And they are willing to hold the security of the country hostage till they get their way.

      Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing. Bush's approval ratings dropped by ten points to 19%. The wiretap issue was gone after a single media cycle.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:How do they know? by evil+agent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing.

      I think you're wrong, something quite significant has come out of this: Bush has proved himself wrong. The gov't has been, and still is, saying that without this warrantless wiretapping, we are no longer safe. By calling their bluff, they forced Bush to say that he would veto the bill if it didn't include telecom immunity. In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public! If this wiretapping is so instrumental to our safety, why would he threaten a veto, or in this case, let the legislation expire?

      --
      End transmission.
    6. Re:How do they know? by dzfoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >> I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

      He means that Bush's argument goes something like this:

      1. The warrantless wiretapping program is essential for our national security.
      2. We must not let it expire and we must enhance its regulation or else the country will be unsafe.
      3. Oh and by the way, we could use retro-active immunity for the telcos in order to ensure their cooperation.

      His focus when speaking to the American people has been on #1 and #2, in essence playing the "fear card".

      By threatening to veto a bill that provides #1 and prevents #2 (his primary argument), just because it does not contain #3 (an auxiliary argument), he is conveying the message that retro-active immunity is more important than national security itself.

      Now, you can argue -- as you you seem to do in your comment -- that it is Bush's opinion that retro-active immunity is essential for national security, and that may very well be the case. However, whether it is more important than having the program in the first place is debatable, and understood by many to be an indefensible position; and at the very least gives the appearance of a strawman to the first two arguments I mentioned.

                  -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  2. I just don't get it by websitebroke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What does the White House, et al. want with this? In the previous system, all you had to do was get a warrant to spy on somebody. There was a special court set up just to issue these warrants, and it was completely confidential. If they really, really had to spy on somebody right this very instant, they could, and just had to make sure that they touched base with the court in the next few hours. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

    What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever?

    Oh, yeah, he wants us to not sue Verizon, AT&T, whoever. Well, sorry guys, you had a responsibility, as citizens of the USA, to tell the government no. I mean, WTF, corporations run this country anyway...

  3. Tapping the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well the more enlightening slashdiscussion for today is: when is wiretapping ok and when isn't it, and to what degree? Keeping in mind the world today isn't the same one in Capone's times.

  4. Corporate intrest by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I cant help but wonder how long it will be until the RIAA are allowed to wiretap just in case people are talking about their latest downloads.

    ~Dan

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    1. Re:Corporate intrest by rhendershot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going to moderate you off-topic but, well, then.... my 2 cents.

      First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts. That goes WAY beyond the issues of private commerce between individuals and recordings-producers.

      With that said; what the fux do you think DRM *is* except a way to "wiretap" the private individual (aka. customer). Without judicial review. Unilaterally.

      Personally I think it's a violation of RICO and monopolistic to enforce law through technology when the issues of fair-use are not resolved by a court. That's another rant though.

  5. What do you expect with a secret government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Instead of secret governments that spy on people in fear of terrorism, an open government would make all these problems go away. There's no point conducting terrorist attacks when you can productively participate in the system. And of course, there's no point in an open government trying to do things in secret.

    The framework is already being built: http://www.metagovernment.org/

    I'm sure that website is "wiretapped" :) but it doesn't matter. There are no leaders in an open source government.

  6. Resume? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did they ever really stop?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  7. This whole issue of the US gov. spying on .... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...its citizens is not about identifying potential terrorists but rather to determine what the general public mindset is so to know what to promote in order to manipulate it.

    Why such spying has resumed, or hasn't stopped, is because its an election year.

    And that should be obvious.

    Is this against the constitution of the united states? Absolutely, as it is an intent to invade privacy in order to deceive.

    This is nothing new as even the "Declaration of Independence" identifies government abuse of its citizens, even being specific.

    To All: When was the last time you read it?

  8. The end of the Afghan war by Max_W · · Score: 2, Interesting
    To understand what is going on in the USA and in the world one has to realize what a traumatizing event was the destruction of Mew York City and the US military headquarters in September of 2001.

    The war in the Afghanistan ended not by the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The true end of the war was on 9/11. It was the logical final of supporting and financing the religious fanatics around the world.

    At the same time it was a wrongful attack on the civilian targets which forever changed the social and political climate in the USA. Like the defeat of Germany in 1918 brought radicalism and extremism decades later, the same way 9/11 will bring the certain political realities for years to come.

    What happens in Iraq, Kosovo, the USA itself is the message which hurt American people send to the world and to themselves: "We can be as cruel, ruthless, nasty just about the same as the outside world was to us. Even more so. Much much more."

    There is nothing new in this phenomena. Sometimes people are surprised why the leadership of the USSR did not want accept some good economics ideas from the West. But they forget that Leonid Brezhnev was a general during the WW2. He was part of the battle for Crimea. He was among few survivors of the most ferocious artillery barrage during human history at Malays Zemlya.

    It is difficult to expect a senseful decisions from traumatized people. The crime that was committed against the great nation on 9/11 will be felt by the generations to come.

    The New York City was not only the achievement of the USA. It was the part of the humankind heritage. That is why its destruction changed the humankind. Inevitably to the worse.

  9. Re:Resuming wiretaps by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fuck the non-American's, it's the American side of the conversation that needs, no REQUIRES, protection. Last I checked, unwarranted searches and wiretaps were still unconstitutional, but the Bush administration has trampled roughshodden over our rights so much anyway that the sheep living in this country just shut up and take it. It's like everyone in this country has been put under some Svengali spell designed to keep them complacent, docile, and unquestioning, primed for the day before the '08 election, when the Bushies will dispatch the National Guard to institute martial law and a new Christian Theocracy. No one will question it, and no one will even raise a hand to do a damned thing about it.

    Yeah, I know, it's a totally made up scenario. But with things going the way they are, that scenario could one day become very real. Take this moment to drop an email to your elected representatives and demand an end to this nonsense.

  10. Re:It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That'll be rather hard, since you'd have to send all the conversations across the Atlantic.

    Much easier if you shipped the Brits to the USA to listen and then ask them if they heard anything interesting ;). Then you have some of your people to the UK to listen to the UK people and do the same thing. Similarly for the rest of the Echelon members.

    BUT the main thing is, it looks like they've even stopped bothering to go through the proper motions. And that should worry the people in the USA (and people elsewhere because the USA is the most powerful nation and willing to unilaterally use that power for bad reasons).

    When the people in power regard their _subjects_ with such contempt that they even stop putting on a "quality show", then it makes you wonder what's next.

    --
  11. Re:Well that answers the immunity question... by kharchenko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not that I don't think he deserved it, but I have some qualms about having current VP fill the spot.

  12. AG agrees wiretaps are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Here's what our Attorney General say, in a letter McConnell and Mukasey wrote to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes:

    [You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have elapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "may begin surveillance immediately" in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest]. In other words, in the Administration's own words, what they are doing is illegal. Nixon broke into some file cabinets. Bush and the complicit telcos monitor everything. And the Democrats are so spineless they let it happen. Amazing. One telco refused to comply - Quest - and they were shut out of lucrative government contracts.

    Glen Greenwald has been on this beat for a long time now. Read more about Mukasy's recent admissionhere.

  13. Re:Well that answers the immunity question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    You miss the point of this gambit.

    You know the old saying: When you owe the bank a million bucks, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion bucks, the bank has a problem.

    Well, when the telcos are liable for $1M in fines, nobody has a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1B in fines, the telcos have a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1T in fines, the government (as in all three branches -- the courts, the DoJ, and the legislators) has a problem.

    The financial penalties to which the telcos were exposed, and the jail time to which Administration, government, and telco employees were vulnerable, were already so sky-high that retroactive immunity was on the table. Every telco with the possible exception of Qwest would have been instantly put in Chapter 7 bankruptcy; lock the doors, nobody comes in to work the next day, shareholders and bondholders alike all wiped out. Everything gets sold for pennies on the dollar, probably to some upstart like Google.

    That might be a great scenario for us geeks, but that's an unacceptable outcome if you're a telco executive. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any telco lobbyist. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any Congressman or Senator who depends on telco cash to get elected.

    Now read the statutes and see how much bigger the penalties get when it's wilful. Publicly flouting the law doesn't make the issue of retroactive immunity moot -- it makes it a requirement.

  14. Re:Resuming wiretaps by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And since you seem so confused, the Constitution is all about inalienable human rights, not inalienable American rights. So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.

    If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?

    Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  15. Re: Impeachment.. by Lunarsight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At this point, the impeachment is primarily symbolic. This is the best time to do it, since if Bush gets kicked out of office, we're not stuck with Cheney for a long period of time.

    Bush -definitely- needs the scar on his record. You figure - Clinton got an impeachment over much less.