Slashdot Mirror


As of October, FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of any crime. As an editorial in the New York Times points out, this is a power that has a history of abuse. In times past, it was used to wiretap Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to spy on other civil rights and anti-war protesters." As Dekortage points out, "Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion,' which the Justice Department denies."

43 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. That sucks D: by B4light · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That sucks D:

    1. Re:That sucks D: by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush was right: The consitution is just a damn piece of paper. Don't count on it to protect you. Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes. Keep voting Dems, Reps or the lot like it and you will sink deeper and deeper in shit untill you are stuck and can't get out. Because then you are fucked. And it won't be pretty.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:That sucks D: by Firehed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and just in time for the election, too. Big surprise.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  2. We should start encrypting everything by ksd1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)

    1. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Linux_ho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    2. Re:We should start encrypting everything by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do I encrypt a conversation with my family? Use pig latin?

      "iHay oneyHay! owHay asWay ourYay ayDay?"

      When the FBI talks about spying they mean spying. They aren't going to stop at snooping your email. They're going to bug your phone. They're going to snoop your physical mail. They're going to go through your banking records. If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:We should start encrypting everything by KovaaK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

      That's the goal, I'd imagine. If we get them to waste enough resources on spying on ordinary citizens, we hope they will realize that it is hopeless.

      In reality, they would probably come to the conclusion that they need to profile people better before they decide to spend such resources.

    4. Re:We should start encrypting everything by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

      You do not chase me because I run. I run because you chase me.

    5. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights

      I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act? Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers employed terrorist tactics (for warfare at the time shooting from behind a tree instead of from a straight line in a field was the equivalent of using civilians for cover in today's warfare) So endorsing a return to their ideas of Rights is an implicit endorsement of fighting your government with terrorist tactics. It's not that far a stretch considering that asymetric warfare will be the only way to unseat the power elite in America should we as a society ever feel the need to do so. Voting between two brands of big government and centralized wealth, is a poor substitute for the kind of freedom this country was originally designed for. So at some point in the tightening of the DHS fist of security, accurately citing history will be a form of inciting terrorist acts.

      Paranoia is my new litmus test for predictive accuracy.

      --
      We are all just people.
  3. And what are us Americans going to do about it? by Drakin020 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing.

    That's right, nothing.

    No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

    People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's becuase everyone I talk to thinks "I don't do anything illegal, why should I care."

      Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.

    2. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

      He said, posting on slashdot.

      But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt? The last time something like that happened, we were left with the bloodiest war in US history, and that was before the advent of a lot of the modern weapons of war. Write to their congressmen? I wrote to Harry Reid while I lived in Nevada, and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!

      Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

    3. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

      Just so you all know, posting indignant posts on slashdot doesn't count as defending your rights. Preaching to the converted != protest.

    4. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by Zen_Sorcere · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sadly, things will have to get a whole lot worse before the people of 'merica will remember their rights are actually theirs, and not something the government should be able to strip away.

      How many marches and protests did we have regarding the war in Iraq? What did Cheney say when asked what he thought about all the protesters? He said, "So?" (that may be a direct quote or a paraphrase, I honestly cannot recall. But it was certainly the gist of what he said).

      So we find ourselves at a point where the peaceful protesting isn't doing any good, but people are not yet at the point for switching to a less softer stick.

    5. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by no1home · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, TV... truly the opiate of the masses!

      Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

      I agree entirely: people need to get out there and get involved. When the system is breaking, fix it from within, not through violence.

      That said, it seems that politicians become corrupt or unable to fight the corruption after joining the ranks of other politicians. Say you become a Congressman. You have a plan, and there is no compromise! Ya, sure. You realize that, to get anything done, you have to compromise, you have to trade favors. Not long after, you find compromise to be easy. A little longer still, and you become compromised yourself. Now, you are part of the problem. I don't say this to discourage (OK, maybe I say it because I'm discouraged), but to show the limits of what can happen. For a political uprising to work, it must truly be an uprising, involving all walks of life in this (US) country. Not a few disgruntled partisans, not one minority, but universal.

      Back to my agreeing with your statement, this means the grass roots efforts must involve people from the suburbs, the inner cities, and the country-side; it must involve the blue collar and white collar workers; it must involve the many religions and the non-believers.

      Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns. I hope it never comes to that. I fear that it might.

      --
      I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

      Persecutors will be violated!
  4. Regs don't trump the constitution. by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

    It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they're endangering the public

      I think you've just hit upon what government doesn't ever want you to realize:

      It is government itself that is the biggest threat to you, your family, and your freedom.

      this is a power that has a history of abuse (from the summary)

      Correction: The power itself is the abuse. How can a special "right" to bypass justice itself NOT be abuse? The concept of guilty before proven innocent -- in whatever slimy manifestation it appears -- is an attack on human rights before the discussion even started.

    2. Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      remember that rule that evidence obtained via torture wasn't admissable? ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...

      not legal, certainly not just, but sadly it is our current reality

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  5. WWJD by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  6. whoopie by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place? Karl Rove tells Congress to take their subpoena, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it right up their collective asses. Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:whoopie by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?

      So it works like this:

      Step 1: Do whatever you want to do.

      Step 2: When Congress or the people complain, ignore or deny Step 1.

      Step 3: Announce that you will do whatever it is you started in Step 1.

      Step 4: What's the point in complaining, they're already doing it?

      I'm sure there's profit in there somewhere.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  7. What.The.FUCK by maynard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this. While this is not - specifically - a function of FISA, the loosening of surveillance regulations it implied.

    And they said, "We don't spy on Americans."

    Right.

    This is how it's supposed to work:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist. Talk about a class war. Yeah, and they fucking won.

  8. COINTELPRO by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. Nice guy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings

    That's big of him. He'll "allow" Congress to hold hearings? Who wears the pants in this family, anyways?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Sigh... by KovaaK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the last link about senators complaining:

    Among their fears: Americans could be targeted in part based on their race, ethnicity or religion

    and

    Citing remarks earlier by Mukasey about the new rules, the spokesman said an investigation would not be opened based solely on a person's race, ethnicity or religion.

    That isn't the problem. I'm glad that they are attempting to slow it down and stop it, but why does it have to boil down to racism for them to stop it? Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

    1. Re:Sigh... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

      Because the Founders are long dead and cannot speak for themselves. We the People, who were supposed to stand in their stead, have forgotten that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  11. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these new police powers never seem to come with more accountability or independent oversight.

  12. We need the USSR back. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Raise your hands, everyone who is surprised by this...

    yeah, that's what I thought.

    We need the old USSR back. As odd as this seems, there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness. I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things. I think that at least in part it's because we no longer have competition to compare and contrast our government's behavior to, so people are less apt to associate this kind of totalitarian behavior with The Evil Empire. As a result, we become The Evil Empire.

    I'm not cheering for Russia as it stomps around in Georgia, mind you, but an odd side-effect of it might be that we start acting like the USA, rather than Trashcanistan.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  13. armed result == bloodbath by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, there is no good way for an armed revolt to be pulled off right now. It took over 100 years for the Civil War to be recovered from, and those guys thought 100 / minute was pretty sweet. We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile. Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

    1. Re:armed result == bloodbath by sleigher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that if things really ever got to that point it is likely the country would be split and the military would also have splinter factions that support the revolution. Remember that the military is just a bunch of 'us'. I would expect most of the military to support the Union but there would certainly be access to commanders and weapons. Obviously this is an extreme example.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    2. Re:armed result == bloodbath by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

      Which is presumably why the vast power of the United States military, supported by numerous allied nations, subdued Iraq and established a secure replacement government so quickly. Oh, wait, they still haven't quite done that, have they?

      You seem to be confusing terrorism with asymmetric warfare. The two concepts, while often encountered together, are quite different.

      You are also assuming that all that military and security power would willingly turn against its own people if it really came to the crunch. That seems unlikely, and it would only take a relatively small amount of resistance in military units or intelligence organisations to cause a great deal of damage. After all, that is why these groups take security so seriously when confronting other foes.

      The really sad thing is that the US government (and those of many other nations) have basically talked themselves into the current madness by overreacting to a small number of isolated but high profile events, developing a culture of fear, and giving absurdy disproportionate emphasis and resources to vaguely defined goals that are somehow supposed to prevent any further high profile bad events. In other words, the terrorists have won, because now the government is doing their job for them and forcing people to change their behaviour out of fear. Meanwhile, orders of magnitude more innocent lives have been lost in the resulting conflicts than ever were in the original attacks. Even worse, orders of magnitude more damage has been done by wasting time, money and public awareness on assorted wars on abstract nouns instead of basic things like making roads safer, curing illnesses, heating the homes of the elderly in winter, and improving the education and opportunities of our kids so they don't go on to become bored and disillusioned enough to explore lives of crime in the first place, any of which alone would do more to improve the health and happiness of the nations than any military action or national security effort ever could.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  14. I hope ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. Re:Not the best plan by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no, they'll investigate specific people on an agenda.

    That agenda might be making trouble for those who oppose policy, those who protest, those who question government statistics on economy, etc.

  16. Re:There is still hope by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the democrats have certainly done all they can to reverse the trend in the last two years, from Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" all the way through congress "considering" a ban on lead in toys (what's to consider, guys?). I'm voting a straight "none of the above" ticket this time around, thanks.

  17. One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not an foreign or even a domestic intelligence gathering agency. What is the point of gathering information in an unconstitutional manner when it will ultimately be of ZERO use in securing a conviction? If the defense attorney can show that warrantless spying or other unconstitutional methods generated the initial leads then everything else which follows from that, even if gathered legitimately, can be thrown out of court on the basis that none of it would have ever been obtained if not for the initial unconstitutional leads. With no evidence of any wrongdoing (because everything was thrown out) there is no case against the defendant.

  18. Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When was the last time a TSA officer killed someone and got paid leave while they had an "internal investigation" and found the officer not guilty?

    When was the last time that a TSA officer beat someone up in handcuffs and didn't get any consequences?

    When was the last time TSA smashed someones door down and shot all of the dogs in the house, again without repercussions?

    Hell, when was the last time a police officer got sent to jail?

    (Not saying that TSA is bad, just saying that Police Officers are indeed a thug caste, who are all immune from prosecution on just about every law, and are assumed to be in the right when their word differs from anyone else)

    I really, really wish this post would be worth of a "-1 Troll" moderation, but all you can say is "give more citations".

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  19. This means one thing by Froeschle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The terrorists have won.

  20. In Soviet Union... by phr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    oh, wait. :(

  21. Trapped by Derosian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else feel like there is no solution to the growing problem of American apathy?

    If I use peaceful means, no one cares.
    If I use violent means, people become martyrs and I am vilified.

    Sometimes I feel like there is no solution to the current government's problem short of a revolution which will occur far down the road, long after I am gone, and that is rather frustrating.

  22. ammo box by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.

    Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army, responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army, based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.

    Falcon

    1. Re:ammo box by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People carying guns don't look innocent

      They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a .22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.

      Falcon

    2. Re:ammo box by StrategicIrony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh bullshit.

      Rebellions are started by rabble-rousers. Usually a small group of people get together and cause a big fuss.

      In the past, a determined group of 50 people could march on a town-hall meeting and pretty much overpower the local authorities by force. This was the case in almost every society where rebellion was successful, be it revolutionary France, pre-renaissance Scotland, Hapsburg Austria, colonial America, etc.

      If a group of pissed off radicals with guns entered a US city, there would not be substantial resistance to shooting them down.

      You don't just suddenly get 40% of the population to take up arms against the country. It doesn't happen spontaneously. It's a bit of a grass-roots thing and our government is EXTREMELY good at rooting out grass-roots armed resistance.

      "the people of the US" in this sense is a misnomer. They wouldn't be out shooting Jane Soccer Mom... it would start with that crazy hippie who screams about freedom and those hackers who must have been up to no good.

      If they showed up on the steps of the capitol with weapons, what do you think would happen? If they weren't shot on site, they would be met by a well-trained force of anti-riot police bearing full body armor, riot shields, tear gas, mace and loaded weapons.

      One of the reasons for the riot police using so much "non-lethal" weaponry is that there far less resistance to shooting at protesters with that stuff, but it's enough to put down almost any crowd, as violent political protests in massively corrupt countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and others have shown.

      You simply don't have a pissed off band of civilians having ANY success against a large group of trained combatants with specialized crowd dispersal devices COMBINED with tactical weapons advantages.

      I just don't see it happening.

  23. So much for by rossz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So much for the Democratic majority putting a stop to government abuses as they promised. I'm sure the DailyKos crowd will denounce Bush for this. He deserves lots of blame, but the Democrats deserve contempt. They have the numbers to push through almost anything they want. From where I'm sitting, however, nothing has changed. The government is still violating the Constitution, my Rights no longer matter, the people in power are still enjoying their pork (pork spending has, in fact, increased with the Democratic majority).

    Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. The government needs an enema.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth