Slashdot Mirror
FBI Admits More Privacy Violations
kwietman writes "The FBI admitted that in 2006, for the fourth straight year, they improperly accessed phone and internet records of U.S. citizens. Director Robert Mueller testified that the abuses occurred prior to sweeping reforms enacted in 2007, and actually blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested. In another unsurprising development, the FBI also underreported the number of security letters - used to authorize wiretaps and to subpoena internet and telecom records - by over 4,600. The use of these letters to identify potential terrorists has, according to the government audit, increased dramatically since the implementation of the Patriot Act. Over 1,000 of these security letters were found to be improper in 2005, and similar numbers were expected for 2006 and 2007."
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The Feds will never care, the White House will never care as it seems most people in the U.S. don't care about this issue. Without outrage we'll never see an improvement. "Catching" bad guys is what they think they're doing and no adjustment will be made from within. Sadly, it will most likely never become a major issue, though it most certainly should.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Perhaps I am a cynic, but it seems to me that this is merely to be expected.
Stazi couldn't keep constant surveillance over all of the citizens of East Germany because the technology did not exist to obtain, process, store, and organize this data. Yet they tried, and got fairly close to being able to track anyone who even remotely questioned the regime.
Now we're getting close to the point where total surveillance of the citizenry is actually feasible. To expect that bureaucracy will go ahead with such a project is awfully optimistic. The goal of any political system is the preservation of status quo, and total surveillance is a very important step to ensure that no perturbations to the system can result from any member of the population that chooses to think for themselves.
Whether or not we're willing to tolerate this, is the question, because there is no doubt in my mind that it will happen.
Perhaps we should start with re-examining the concept of privacy, and decide precisely the level of privacy we're comfortable with.
" . . . blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested . . ."
Who needs abusive government bureaucracies to abuse our rights when corporations can do the job even better?
It's time to drag the paranoid, power-hungry trolls responsible for these outrages out into the sunlight for a little disinfecting.
Issue the subpoenas, investigate these abuses, and, yes, impeach the president. Even if he wasn't responsible for this debacle, then he's derelict in his duties to uphold the constitution.
"...You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he'd like to obtain Americans' records, bank records or anything else and do it just because they want to."
Like warrantless wiretapping, right? Yeah, we definitely shouldn't have that.
I like the way that the Orwellian type language of the WOT infiltrates supposedly objective news. First, the phrasing suggests that more potential terrorists are identified from the use of the letters. Better, and more correct would be "attempt to identify potential terrorists". Second, the notion of "potential" terrorists bothers me to no end. Has any one done a ROC curve or the like on the use of these letters or any other method to identify "potential" terrorists? My guess is not. The lack of any scientific method in the identification of "potential" terrorists means we are dealing with an old fashioned witch hunt on a grand scale, full of suspicion, superstition, and prejudice.
Just callin' it like I see it.
The fact that this information can be found via audits and released publicly signals that our system of government is working pretty well. An effective executive branch (one that can actually protect the innocent) requires some power to operate; that power will be mishandled because the people wielding it are human, meaning they are lazy, incompetent, unfocused. In some cases they may be malicious, but this is a worry for anyone wielding any power anywhere, from prosecutors to defense lawyers to legislators to judges to policemen to presidents.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
They're told the their privacy is being abused, and they mentally convert this into their privacy not being abused, only terrorists and since when do terrorists deserve privacy?
That's a huge problem right there. Those are the same people who say "I have nothing to hide," but when you ask for all their bank statements and keys to their doors and video cameras in their house... (just keep suggesting more stuff until...) they balk.
And maybe some of the perception is that the government is this magical entity, not made up of people who are your neighbors, or that jerk that cut you off this morning, etc.
All of a sudden, those same people want their privacy. Amazing isn't it?
Have you ever read a forum dominated by police who think that their violations of the law are justified in the line of duty? They think you ought to be grateful for them, as though you are some mewling little animal incapable of living in relative safety without them. These people aren't your congressman. They could give a shit less what you think. They think that you owe them a debt of gratitude for keeping you alive and free that's ten times higher than anything anyone in the military would feel.
It is too late to start using the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land again. If we followed the Constitution exactly as it is written we would have to get rid of things like the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, and many other government programs and agencies that people don't want to see taken away. After years of ignoring it, the Constitution has lost its power.
Creative Demolition
1) 2/3 vote required to pass a VETO by the chimp
;-)
2) Democrats may be similar as republicans politically; but as a party they are NOT the same. The Dems seem to pride themselves on their 'distributed' nature and lack of organization and uniformity that constantly undercuts them despite historically having the largest membership.
3) Democrats have more in-fighting and less uniformity among their members; nor do they frequently threaten and undermine those who break rank - that is if they even bother to even force a position as a party (party positions are largely PR.)
4) The SENATE is 50/50. Joe Lieberman does whatever his blackmailers tell him to do (hint: warrantless watergate - one may recall that many staff members of watergate era work in the current whitehouse; break and enter isn't required. oh, they wouldn't be so dishonest as to datamine politicians would they?
5) Impeachment is off the table. Everybody is waiting it out until 2008. Can't believe they'd actually want McCain to have to take the fall for the growing mess that can't be cleaned up in 4 or even 8 years (which naturally, people will blame the one in office because they can't remember back more than 1 year. I'm NOT kidding I heard a GOP strategist plan on that statistic.)
Try participating in both parties. I have. Culture and voter turn-out issues are largely the only big differences.
see politicalcompass.org
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I take the fact that they announce their errors as a good sign. They could simply hide it like most other governments.
This leads to the second problem. The agencies responsible implementing the legislation or using the new powers are not bound by the politicians admonitions about their use. In fact, quite the opposite it true- their very nature and mission encourages them to take the full advantage of whatever powers, rules or procedural changes are implemented in the framework of legislation and common law under which they operate. The only way they can determine the true boundaries of their new powers or a new law is by a process of trial and error, generally involving court cases and other legal mechanisms.
Which is all fine and is the way that laws have been passed and refined by courts for a considerable period of time (if disasterous if you are the individual caught up in a grey area). However it becomes rather more slippery when the implementation of the legislation in question is subject to national security constraints, secret courts, exceptions for back-filling of paperwork and other get-out clauses.
Whilst I might object strenously to the notion that the FBI should be able to tap into my conversations without a warrant or that the UK govt. might like to lock me up for 42 days without charge on spurious 'security' related charges, my most strenuous objections are to the lack of transparency and oversight by independent judiciary in open court or similarly ungagged proceedings.
If the telecom companies gave up information -- the minimum necessary that they were required to hand over in order to comply with the law, that could be an justification for immunity.
You start by stating that the telcos should not be granted unlimited immunity for breaking the law. Then in your next statement you basically say, "Unless they only broke it a little bit," and even then only if the government pays its phone bill.
No. Not just no, but hell no. Maybe you're okay with giving up a little of your freedom to the most corrupt administration in history for a little bit of security. I couldn't get enough warm and fuzzy out of that arrangement to allow me to sleep at night. George Bush can stick telco immunity ("if we don't give them a pass, they won't be so willing to break the law next time") right up his ass. I want the FBI out of my business unless they have probably cause and a warrant. Period, end of story.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***