Slashdot Mirror


FBI Violated Electronic Communications Privacy Act

An anonymous reader writes to tell us of a report from the Washington Post which alleges that the FBI "illegally collected more than 2,000 US telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records." The report continues, "E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. ... FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show."

63 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Duhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your tax dollars aren't being used to your benefit. Your never going to get propper health care when it's more profitable for politicians to sell you out to insurance companies for 'campaign contributions'

    I can't even find out how much my insurance company will cover for a given procedure. They refuse to tell me until its to late.

    But the FBI can break the law and spy on me all day...

    1. Re:Duhh... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And they have been able to twist the "healthcare" debate into a discussion about government taking away "freedoms"... while this is going on under their noses.

      We've got a lot of people here in the US right now that are running after not only RED herrings, but blue, pink, orange and red pokadotted herrings as well.

    2. Re:Duhh... by megamerican · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many American's, whether they are democrat or republican aren't very happy with Obama because he promised two major things with healthcare: he would not force people to buy insurance and that he would televise healthcare discussions with insurance and big pharma companies.

      He did a complete 180 on both of those promises. Many democrats realize what Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, that the current healthcare bills are bailouts to the insurance companies and wall street.

      On topic for the FBI; they have always broken the law in very deliberate ways. Go read about the FBI's COINTELPRO operations.

      You can watch this documentary: COINTELPRO: The FBI's war on black America

      Or you can read this Church Committee Report on how the FBI illegally spied on Martin Luther King Jr. for years, using the Communist scare to justify their actions (the more things that change...)

      There are plenty of legitimate reasons why people don't trust their government and it has nothing to do with what color fish people enjoy consuming. This country was founded on the principle of treating government actions with a large dose of skepticism.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    3. Re:Duhh... by svtdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And people with practical foresight knew that no system can make insurance companies cover you, in spite of preexisting conditions, unless they had a mandate of some kind. The logical way that he could have done so would've been an employer mandate, but in a way you're forcing business owners to buy it, and they're people too. So no matter what you'll have some people upset.

      I happen to prefer the employer mandate, but *some* form of mandate is absolutely necessary to avoid a death spiral in the industry (ie, I have no insurance, I get sick, buy insurance 'til I'm better, drop it again; if everyone does this the risk pool gets so poor that premiums are even more absurd, leading more to drop coverage, and eventually insurance premiums end up as a proxy for hospital bills).

      As far as the healthcare bill being a bailout to Wall Street and the insurance companies, take a look at their profit margins. They're around 3%. What we're talking about is $900B in subsidies to people who can't afford insurance on their own:

      Insurance stocks [rose 3.40%] on news of healthcare deal [...] The 3.40 percent net gain translates into about $3.34 billion in market capitalization added. [...] This would mean that the total value added from passage of the bill is $16.04 billion. [...] That's a lot of money: $16 billion. But relative to the total outlay from the bill, it is fairly small. Over the course of the next ten years, the Senate's bill directs about $447 billion in public subsidies to people for the purchase of private health insurance. (This is in addition to another $400 billion or so in subsidies for the expansion of Medicaid). The $16 billion in value-added, therefore, represents about 3.6 percent of the subsidy. Coincidentally -- and it is mostly a coincidence, since the numbers are not directly comparable for a variety of reasons -- this compares rather neatly to the 3.3 percent profit margin in the health insurance industry overall.

      This is not to mention the fact that after passage, the stocks were down in the net, but the math about the percentage of the subsidy that actually profits insurers is the important bit.

    4. Re:Duhh... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The logical way that he could have done so would've been an employer mandate

      That's only "logical" if you operate in a vacuum and ignore the realities of running a business. Such a mandate would drive many companies out of business in the worst case or force them to lay off workers in the best case. You don't fix unemployment problems by burdening employers with unfunded mandates.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Duhh... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      What if I don't want to be part of the risk pool? What if I'd rather have the money my employer is going to spend on health insurance in my paycheck instead? The mandate is unpopular specifically because it takes away our freedom of choice.

      Besides which, costs won't go down. Costs aren't going up because we don't have everybody in the same risk pool. Costs are going up because we've built a system that requires the involvement of several different layers of bureaucracy (public and private) before a simple bill for an office visit can be paid. Costs won't come down until people realize the absurdity of a system that uses insurance (a product designed to protect against catastrophe) to pay for routine expenses.

      Can you imagine a system wherein your car insurance paid for oil changes? What about one where your homeowners insurance paid to shovel your sidewalks in the winter? Do you think that such a system might cost more than paying for those services out of your own pocket?

      There's a really good article in The Atlantic that looks at this problem. A problem that has been completely ignored during the debate about health care in DC. Give it a read, it'll be well worth your time.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Duhh... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But with everyone covered and everyone in the risk pool, everyone's costs go down.

      No, my costs go up because I'm forced to either buy insurance (which I don't need) or pay a penalty (for not buying insurance).

      Question: why should I have to use my money to cover the medical expenses of my next door neighbor who smokes half a pack a day? Or how about my other neighbor who thinks it's great to drink a case of beer every weekend by himself.

      What about some of the people I work with who waddle like hippos yet refuse to walk up one flight of stairs? (excluding those who legitimately can't walk due to arthritis and the like).

      Why must I spend my money to cover someone else? Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't want?

      And don't use that tired argument of how, if I need it at some point in the future, I'll have it because I could have been investing that money all along and be able to pay my bills if I ever need to. Nor will I ever be covered to the extent I've paid in. Ever.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:Duhh... by TheWizardTim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should you pay for police protection for your neighbor? Why should you pay for schools, when you don't have kids? Why should you pay for Air Traffic Control, when you are scared to fly? Why should you pay for a bridge you will never use? Why should you pay for someone to come up with and enforce building codes? Why should you pay for roads that you will never drive on? Why should you pay for farm aid to a wheat farmer when you can't eat wheat? Why should you pay for anything?

      We live in a society. We all live together. Even if you never use the fire department, you know they are there. You know that they will respond to the fire next door, and hopefully keep it from spreading to your house.

      We make choices as a society of things that benefit us all. Having police patrol the neighborhood and respond to calls, helps you and everyone else. Having schools helps kids become productive members of society and keeps them off the street. Air Traffic Control keeps planes from crashing in to one another, and falling on you. New building codes keep the roof over your head from falling on you in an earthquake. or from the wiring from catching on fire. I can go on, but I hope you get the point.

      We can't have a ME ME ME ME attitude all the time, and live with one another.

    8. Re:Duhh... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeries and two weeks later, I went home. Total bill: $290,000. Total amount I paid: $0.

      That's a bad example to make to justify mandatory health insurance. Injuries of that nature would have been covered under your motorcycle/automobile policy. In fact if you read your health insurance policy it almost certainly has an exclusion for situations where another insurance company is liable for your injuries.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Duhh... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Again, profit cannot be present in a place where the most important thing is to cure people.

      If profit isn't present then I think you'll see the quality of the health care system go down. What do you think motivates many people to get into medicine?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Duhh... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeries and two weeks later, I went home. Total bill: $290,000. Total amount I paid: $0.

      That's a bad example to make to justify mandatory health insurance. Injuries of that nature would have been covered under your motorcycle/automobile policy. In fact if you read your health insurance policy it almost certainly has an exclusion for situations where another insurance company is liable for your injuries.

      And fundamentally, it certainly should be so. The risk being described is in operating the motorcycle, rather than merely being alive. Higher utilization as a result of a wreck should drive up the cost of motorcycle insurance, not health insurance in general, because of the risk-reward nature of insurance.

      Further parties who felt the cost of motorcycle insurance were too high would be incentivized to lower their risks.

    11. Re:Duhh... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And as for the actual proposal, it's better than deficit-neutral over ten years

      My household budget would look pretty good too if I had ten years of income and only six years of expenses.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Duhh... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Interesting
      First, I wish I had mods points for the people above you in the thread. Costs don't go down if everyone has to be in the pool. Just one trivial example why: people who aren't covered now don't go to the ER when they get sick, they don't participate in the medical system at all and they get better all by themselves. (And if you don't believe this, why were hospital ERs deluged to the point they had to refuse admittance to people with the flu this last fall?) A few years ago I had a cut that I went to the ER to deal with, which I would NOT have bothered had the Home Depot where I was injured not said "go to the ER, we'll cover it" (which they then refused to pay a dime for, asshole Home Depot.)

      About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident.

      So YOU are one of those high-risks that everyone else has to pay for when you get hurt having your fun. You get the fun of riding, I get the fun of working to pay to fix you when you get broken. This is a perfect example of why some people want to opt-out of having to pay for health care for other people. They don't ride death-traps, they don't jump out of perfectly good airplanes, they don't inhale burning vegetable matter, they don't try to ride on top of waves, they don't drown their bodies in depressants or strange elixers that make them feel invincible.

      They would rather spend the money they worked for on a new TV instead of paying for your surgeries that were necessary only because you like to ride motorcycles.

      Why should your costs be ZERO? Why shouldn't you have a healthy co-pay? Hell, even the cut I went to the ER for cost me 20% of the total, and I was doing nothing more dangerous than standing in the checkout line at Home Depot.

      Point is, insurance isn't the sucker's bet that a lot of people seem to think.

      Whether it is a sucker's bet depends on the odds, and if you choose to do risky things that changes the odds and makes insurance less of a bet and more of a "get out of jail free" card.

    13. Re:Duhh... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "There is no fucking hope when 'movements' like the 'birthers', tea-baggers, etc. have gained any significant traction at all, instead of being laughed right out of every single mainstream media outlet."

      Why not?

      A 'birther' wants to know that no one who lacks the qualifications for office may be elected. There's nothing catastrophic in this.

      A 'tea-bagger' wants no taxation without representation. Again, I fail to see the 'danger' of this idea.

      Please, enlighten us.

  2. The FBI? Surely not! by JeffSpudrinski · · Score: 2, Funny

    The FBI violated our privacy and civil rights? Surely not, I tell you!

    -JJS

  3. 2000? What a shame they overdid it by mrRay720 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Had they collected 16 fewer records, it could have been so much more appropriate.

  4. Re:The FBI? Surely not! by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly why we protect our civil liberties. A lot of people are willing to hand over exceptional rights to the government to make them safe from terrorism. The reason we don't do that is because the government abuses our rights. Proponents for strong government say it's a slippery slope argument, fortunately, we now have the evidence of wrong-doing to point back and show why rights need to be protected, and people responsible for abusing those rights should be severely prosecuted.

  5. Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules. I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    1. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.

      How does that punish the FBI? We the People, then have to deal with the criminals.

      Instead, punish the FBI, by punishing the FBI. Fire their asses.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about making some of the guilty in the FBI do the perp walk?

      Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law.

    3. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by Shatrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It happens all the time and it doesn't really do anything but put criminals back on the streets.
      What should be done is convict the criminal and then turn around and convict the investigator who broke the law during the course of the investigation.
      What you propose is just 'two wrongs make a right as long as two different people commit them'.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. (emphasis added)

      It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of "technicalities". Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that, with unconscious irony, is always calling for "law and order" -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law doesn't or at least shouldn't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them. When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation, they are regarded as "getting off on a technicality", and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are "soft on crime". Of course, what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement, and they are far-sighted enough to know that treating law enforcement agencies as being above the law is the royal road to serfdom, but the yokels don't get it. In their view, the function of the law is to dish out punishment, not to maintain actual order, and anything that gets in the way of punishing people -- often including their actual innocence -- angers them.

      Unfortunately, there's not a lot of sympathy among those types for enforcing proper police procedure. They're the same people who hold the view that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care about being searched. And it's true enough that they have nothing to hide inside their trailer parks, so why worry?

      I wouldn't expect anything to change until the "law and order" faction grasps the fact that the expression "technical violation of the law" has no actual meaning; something is in violation of the law or it is not, and if the law is to lead to justice, it must apply to everyone equally, whether it's a thug holding up a liquor store or a better-dressed thug illegally wiretapping American citizens.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    5. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules. I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.

      It's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated, and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk. That's generally been the "teeth" in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence. It's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights, because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he didn't have any rights and had to confess, so his confession was thrown out and he walked.

      The thing is, it's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything. It's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records. All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking "nonexistent emergencies". Well if the emergency was non-existent, it's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.

      The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions. Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties, but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats. So the FBI's counsel can say that they only "technically" violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack, and hey that might even be true, but the practical result was they made it harder to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.

      Hey, who would have thought that the FBI "technically" violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties, and to "Ends justify the means" types?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you shouldn't convict the criminal based on illegally obtained evidence.

      The reason for this is simple.

      Do you know of every possible statute in your law that could put you behind bars if you violated it?
      In Canada, we have the Criminal Code, for which most violations have the option of a jail term. There are lawyers who have made it their life's work for decades to work with only the criminal code, and still don't have it all down.

      Then on top of that, there are the various tax, anti-terrorist crap, immigration, and other federal laws that could put you in jail. That doesn't even get to the provincial laws that could do the same. The Highway Traffic Act allows for jail terms for various things, although most of them are for obvious stuff like drunk driving, but still...

      Then there are municipal laws.

      Then there are all the laws at these three levels that could result in a fine, rather than jail time.

      Do you know every single one of these laws?

      Yeah....right.

      The reason illegal evidence is not allowed in court, is that if it were allowed, then every citizen of the entire country would be a criminal, in one way or another, and anyone could be put in jail for political reasons because, with enough digging, it's guaranteed that you'd be able to find something they did that was illegal. The legal system is so horrendously complex, that nobody, anywhere, can know everything there is to know about it.

      This goes for politicians, too, because there are known instances where one law contradicts another, and if you uphold one, you have no choice but to break the other.

      The US legal system is probably even more complex, being that the country is older, and has more states with their own laws.

      Don't pretend that all evidence should be allowed, or all it would take is for somebody to take a disliking to you, and all of a sudden you're in jail for breaking a law nobody knew about, and hasn't been enforced for a hundred years.

      If there's reasonable belief that somebody's broken the law, that's one thing. Get a warrant. That's why the system is set up that way. If there's no reason to believe somebody's done something wrong, don't go fishing. Screw off and leave them alone.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    7. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by Fnord666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Instead, punish the FBI, by punishing the FBI. Fire their asses.

      Fire them? That should just be the start of it. Indictments, followed by a criminal trial, followed by a stint in prison if found guilty is what should happen to them. Will it? Probably not, but one can hope that there is still a shred of sanity left.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    8. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by evil_aar0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Law enforcement officers are not above the law.

      Sure they are. Two recent events:

      1. I'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway. I'm in the normal lane, on the right, and the trooper's in the passing lane, though he's not passing anyone; he's just cruising, there. A county sheriff comes up behind us, lights and siren going, in the passing lane, and the statie does nothing: doesn't move over to the right lane, doesn't speed up, doesn't slow down - nothing. After following the statie for a few seconds, the sheriff had to dodge into the right lane to get around him.

      2. I'm in my home town, making a turn onto a 2-lane stretch leading out of town. Speed limit is 30 for at least half a mile. A police officer from another town turns onto the same street, right behind me and then - no lights, no siren - just blazes up street, leaving me in the dust, though I was doing 35.

      The police are definitely above the law - at least in their own minds.

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    9. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by Rasputin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law."

      Yeah, the problem is Barack Obama chose not to pursue the crimes of the Bush Administration. He believed that doing so would cause a Republican backlash. It is an understandable strategy, but leaves no room for JUSTICE. It also hasn't prompted the right-wingers to cut him any slack.

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    10. Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What we need are the names. Then those wronged by the FBI could file suit in Federal court, due to the seriousness of the allegation that they were involved in a terrorist attack.

  6. Told you so! by copponex · · Score: 4, Funny

    After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.

    Sincerely,

    Your Fox Opinutainment Team

    1. Re:Told you so! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why will Obama not Deny that he signed each one of these requests? I have heard that several of them were related to Glen Beck killing and raping a young girl in 1990.

      Why won't Glen Beck Deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990? And why won't President Obamba deny that he signed each one of these orders personally?

      (ever notice how when the last administration was in, certain people got mad, and corrected you that "It is PRESIDENT Bush", and those same people call our current president by his last name, or even worse, his first-middle-last.. Even if you don't respect the person, you have to respect the position, damnit. During the Campain, President Clinton came to my small town.. Some people wrote in nasty editorials about referring to him as President, when our President was PRESIDENT Bush. the newspaper had to explain that president is a title for life, and that its actually encoded into law somewhere...)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  7. Re:Surprised? by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because revolution has never been bloodless. O.o

    People revolt because they feel they have no other option and there are leaders strong enough to rally them. Look at the shit people took in Iraq and never revolted.
    Yet, look at Indias revolution.

    History shows that revolution happens, but only after years of oppression. Here in the USA, we get perceived renewed hope every 4, 6, to 8 years. Problem is, the "other guy" always did it even though those that actually did it have been in power throughout. Congress.... we really need to clean house.

  8. Re:Better Dead than Red? by gninnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a false dichotomy. Giving away civil liberties does not equal more safety. There is much more that can be done to prevent crime and violence that would be much more productive than wasting time money and effort on wire tapping, and that is just legal wire tapping, not this.

  9. Surprised? by SirBigSpur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is anyone actually surprised by this?

  10. Re:Better Dead than Red? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world. By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.

    I'd rather be dead then a slave.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  11. 2000+ Felonies? by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aren't these violations felonies? If so, then why are criminals employed by the FBI instead of in prison? If not, then (aside from the invasion of privacy), what's the problem?

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  12. Who's going to jail? by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to TFA, the US DOJ started investigating the FBI over this issue in 2006. Why aren't FBI agents in jail right now? And why didn't the Washington Post ask this question?

  13. Re:Surprised? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soldiers are citizens too. And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.

    Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well. Although you do need a pretty corrupt government for this to happen, and the Us is nowhere near there yet.

  14. Re:Better Dead than Red? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You sir, are an idiot.

    The probability of getting killed by a terrorist attack is so low that it shouldn't be any valid excuse to give away your privacy.
    Bend over if you'd like, but please let others fight for their rights.

    "Post PS": "personal PC" is just wrong

  15. Re:Surprised? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well.

    And most unsuccessful revolutions have been crushed by the army. Funny how that works out.

  16. Re:Better Dead than Red? by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Total number of Americans killed in Terrorist attacks in the last decade: ~3000 (No, soldiers fighting a way don't count)
    Total number of Americans killed in car accidents in the last decade: ~400,000

    I have to wonder what the benefit of having "the ability to travel" is if the end result is being killed in a car accident. Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying travel, being dead means you'll never travel anyway. We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our ability to travel later since we'll still be alive to work for it.

  17. Re:Surprised? by Alinabi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soldiers are citizens too. And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.

    That has rarely been the case throughout history.

    --
    "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
  18. Re:Surprised? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Police are just doing their job. They want their job to be easy and it is their boss's job to make sure they are not breaking the law

    No, part of a police officer's job is to uphold the law, it is no more their boss's job to ensure they are not breaking it than it is my parents' job (given I am an adult) to make sure that I'm not breaking the law.

  19. There should be criminal prosecutions by Grond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.

    'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.

    In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process.

    So how many of these were actually true emergencies? And having the legal right to get something doesn't excuse getting it illegally. If the police have probable cause they can get a warrant to search my house. If they decided to skip getting a warrant and search it anyway, the results of that search are inadmissible even though the police could have done it legally. It should be no different in this case. In fact, in this case there's a statute specifically defining the crime, and it does not excuse a criminal act if it could have been done legally but wasn't.

    Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.

    That's not a legally recognized excuse. The intent that matters is the intent to intercept the communication, which was plainly present (this is not a case of accidentally tapping the wrong line or anything like that). Whether they knew what they were doing was illegal or whether they thought what they were doing was justified is irrelevant in this case, per the statute.

    Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted.

    Discipline? I hope that's just for starters. The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes." They betrayed the public trust and broke the law even after their illegal behavior was pointed out to them. It's utterly inexcusable.

    The federal government should also be made to pay the appropriate statutory civil fine to the parties whose phone records were illegally gathered, which is the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000. If $10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive, the government should take a look at the Copyright Act some time. And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.

    1. Re:There should be criminal prosecutions by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if I am over the speed limit I am in technical violation of the speed limit and I should not get a ticket

      Don't know about where you live, but around here, very few speeders get tickets. You really have to be 15+ MPH over the limit before they get interested, and that doesn't count all the miles of roadway where there's no officer even checking speeds. So yeah, if you're speeding, you're technically in violation of the law, but everyone has accepted that it's just not practical to enforce the letter of that law.

      Using "technical violation of the law" to describe these wiretaps is a way to tell us that, even though it's illegal, this is the way the organization operates on a day-to-day basis, because they consider it no more "illegal" than jaywalking. The comparison to speeding is especially apt, except that speeding is a relatively minor moving violation, whereas wiretapping violates one of the most fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution.

  20. Where were the T-parties by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where were the T-parties? Where is Fox news? Why are they not protecting our constitutional rights and going after the people who committed these felonies against the our citizens?

    Oh, that's right. The only protest people they think are liberals, who want things like health care, and believe in the rule of law. When a conservative administration breaks the law its for our own good. My bad.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  21. Re:Better Dead than Red? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seen many terrorists in your neighborhood? Don't count the ones in your family portrait now!!

    So - you're willing to surrender your rights, and cower in fear of terrorists, and you've NEVER SEEN ONE!!

    Cool.

    Personally, I refuse to surrender my rights. Hell - every harbor town I've ever seen was populated by freaks of some kind or another, but I still walked the streets like I owned them. Chicago, New York, and LA are populated by thieves, robbers, whores, and worse - especially after the sun goes down. I should fear going out?

    Funny - I don't fear what I HAVE seen, but you fear what you HAVEN'T seen.

    Imagine that. Can I get you some more Kool-Aid, dude?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  22. Re:Better Dead than Red? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone has a gun to your head you're probably not very worried about the misquitos, why? Because the gun is a larger and more immediate danger. You are 2 orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack (and even those numbers are skewed by the largest terrorist act in our nation's history, the real value is probably closer to 3 orders of magnitude).

    Yet we still invest hundreds of billions of dollars, give away our rights, and piss off the international community all in an effort to reduce deaths by terrorism. If we had put that same amount of money into things like high speed rail, improved roads, or enforcing drunk driving laws, we could have saved many more lives.

  23. Heh, nice. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.

    Actually, according to TFA, all these "nonexistent emergencies" and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI's communications analysts, which one can reasonably guess hindered their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.

    Oh but don't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty "Liberty or Safety" false dichotomy. I mean it's so nice and obvious if you don't think about it even the tiniest bit.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  24. I'm still waiting... by macintard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...for the Hope & Change that was promised to me. So far, BO seems a lot like GWB, but with better speaking skills.

  25. Re:Surprised? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's my boss's job to make sure I'm not breaking the law? WTF?

    I'm sure he'll be happy to know that.

    No...it's your job to make sure you're not breaking the law. Especially when you work in law enforcement.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  26. Re:Who cares... by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

    none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced

    I'm inconvenienced when my tax money goes to bullshit like this, especially when the FBI was already having trouble paying for the wiretaps they actually needed.

    If it had discovered a plot to blow up some major building and those involved were arrested the FBI would probably have been hailed as heroes and given medals.

    And making up fake terrorism threats would have discovered one?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  27. You ignorant liberals just don't get it by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Funny

    We have to sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms. Even though our free society is better than an authoritarian one, authoritarianism is far better at protecting freedom. So, the only way to be free and have rights is to not be free and lose your rights. You dirty hippies get it now?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  28. Re:Better Dead than Red? by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been, it's unclear exactly what your numbers are meant to show.

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
    Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, dear.
    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Oh, how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn’t work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

  29. Re:Better Dead than Red? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Minor correction: I'd rather be dead than a slave. Being an undead slave would probably suck too.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  30. Re:Better Dead than Red? by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or enforcing drunk driving laws

    It's interesting that you complain about a loss of civil liberties and then use drunk driving as an example of something that needs more attention. The war on drunk driving has infringed on many of our civil liberties. In no particular order:

    • "Implied consent" laws pretend that the 4th and 5th amendments don't exist.
    • Police roadblocks where you have to account for your origin and destination to the friendly representative of the state are normally something associated with authoritarian regimes. Yet we embrace them for the sake of catching drunks.
    • People make arguments like "driving is a privilege" to support these policies, thus reducing the citizenry to children that need to be watched over by a benevolent parent.
    • The 0.08 law ignores the fact that most drunk driving accidents involve BACs of 0.15 or higher. It also pretends that everyone responds the same to alcohol, which isn't the case. One person might suffer no ill effects at 0.08, while another might be falling down drunk. Biology does not respond to hard limits in the same manner as an engineering or legal project.
    • The Government invents bullshit statistics to support these policies. One of my favorites is the statistic that "nearly half of all fatal accidents involve alcohol". Guess how they arrive at that number? They include accidents where a passenger had alcohol in his or her system.
    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  31. Re:Better Dead than Red? by JonStewartMill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In one sense, all those attacks DID succeed. They achieved their aim of frightening America's government into imposing ever more infringements on the freedom of its people, and frightening Americans into accepting those infringements.

  32. Re:Better Dead than Red? by tehdaemon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Nonsense. They don't really give a damn about our freedoms. They want the US a)out of Muslim nations, and b)to stop helping Israel. The idea that they hate us for our freedoms is mostly crap. They do hate us for being infidels, part of that is the fact that we don't enforce sharia law, so in a roundabout way they are against our freedoms, but not really.

    T

    --
    Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
  33. Re:Better Dead than Red? by JonStewartMill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't say "they hate us for our freedoms". They hate us for what we're doing to their freedoms (even if it's paradoxically the freedom to be restrictive of freedoms), and goading us into letting our government become more oppressive to its own populace is their revenge.

  34. Re:Surprised? by webweave · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kent State? May 4th 1970 Ohio National Guard from over 300 feet away fires into a crowd of unarmed students killing four, one student is shot in the back and one student not involved it the protest is killed from a stray bullet. Courts said the Guard was justified killing the unarmed and distant students and not even an apology was issued.

  35. Depends on WHO is breaking the law by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them. By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted. Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior? I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.

  36. You'd get in more trouble for speeding by The+Atog+Lord · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I were caught speeding, could I justify that by telling the officer who pulled me over that I was stressed?

    Now, imagine that instead of speeding, I were instead violating the Constitution of the United States. For a period of several years.

    We have rules and laws to prevent this from happening. But if there are no consequences for the people and agencies who violate our rights, then those rights have no teeth. The people who have done this to us should be prosecuted.

  37. Re:The FBI? Surely not! by davester666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    But if there is no real penalty being applied when this happens, can it really be considered illegal?

    The FBI has been repeatedly caught doing these and other things such as using NSL's improperly, and even lying to Congress, and yet I never hear "and so and so who did it went to jail" or even "and those involved were fired".

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  38. Suggested Readings: by foobsr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The narrator inhabits a paranoid dystopia where nothing is as it seems, chaos seems to rule all events, and everyone is deeply suspicious of every one else. In danger of losing his mind, our protagonist starts keeping a diary, and it is this diary which details only a few days in his life that is ultimately found by a future society and given the title Notes from the Neogene. Memoirs Found in a Bathtub is this distant voice from the past, this Notes from the Neogene."

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

    Also probably anything by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, who were originally targetting the Soviet Union. Well, US is SU looking backwards.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)