EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations

An anonymous reader writes "EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 — 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau's intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed. Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the report finds: Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board; reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant; and indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11."

Comments

Of course they did

[ravenspear]

If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

We've seen it before.

With this being known fact, the politicians are to blame for enacting the Patriot Act without even reading it just because they needed something to trumpet in the media that would appear patriotic after 9/11.

Re:Of course they did

[MoonBuggy]

What we need is a long, continuously updated list of every time our concerns have been assuaged by a promise that "the new powers will only be used in these specific and necessary circumstances". Then we add to the list documentary evidence of those promises being broken. Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.

Re:Of course they did

[Charliemopps]

Unfortunately, no... we are to blame. Stop voting Democrat/Republican if you want to get off this merry-go-round.

Re:Of course they did

[besalope]

That won't accomplish anything. The proles will just change the channel to their "American Idol" or other similar drivel when they get bored. The American public is too apathetic about the political institution in this country to actual pay attention to what it does or to even have a hope of real change.

Re:Of course they did

[monkyyy]

hopefully after 1000 times; they would, so a year maybe

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree whole-heartedly. Governments almost never return power to the people once given.

Here's a solution to the problem with the FBI. Prosecute each violation vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law. Any member of law enforcement should exemplify the standard and therefore be fully accountable to it. Perjury is typically a felony in most jurisdictions and any FBI agent (or any other agent given special powers) should spend time in federal prison for such a crime. This will provide ample time to consider how they've trampled underfoot the blood of those who died to preserve the freedom Americans enjoy.

I'M SICK OF THIS ABUSE OF POWER!

Re:Of course they did

[icebike]

The list would accomplish nothing, but having civil recourse as a victim would make fun reading.
Especially since every report to congress (even if two years late) is a defacto admission. No law suit should be necessary, just send the check.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but who are you going to get to prosecute them. And even if you did find a prosecutor how long do you think it would take before someone visited them off the record to make sure that their case failed.

Democracy is a sham, we live in republics and the bureaucracy controls the them.

Re:Of course they did

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Sure, just find me an alternative that's better.

Re:Of course they did

[Gerzel]

And most of those politicians got re-elected by us, that us including you.

Re:Of course they did

[TheGratefulNet]

the system is broken.

you guys are arguing about which privileged class gets to run the country.

I question the very NOTION of a privileged class running the country. enough of the rich bastards having their way and taking care of their own!

term limits should be ONE. period - no renewals. that removes the 'profit incentive' or rather, the come-back-to-get-more-power incentive. you get one term to make a difference and then you're back to your old job; but with oversight to ensure you didn't make some sweetheart deals for post-office kickbacks. there should be a STRICT no profit restriction on public officials. only get the ones that want to do it 'for the right reasons' and not for the money or power.

arguing about which of the 2 parties - or even if you can get a 3rd - does not change a damned thing. this is a false-choice that is given to you.

fix the system, remove this party 'us and them' concept and let each person speak on their own terms, on issues. isn't what what we REALLY want? parties are bullshit and serve no useful purpose but to deceive. why keep that outdated notion?

Re:Of course they did

[JWSmythe]

    Too bad there isn't a "Sad but true" moderation.

    Most people ignore things that don't directly involve them. Who cares if [insert agency] commits [insert action] against [someone else]. Until someone finds out that a questionable legal wire tap implicated them in some sort of crime, which could lead to serious jail time through new means, they could care less. As you said, they'll flip over to American Idol and otherwise numb their brains to oblivion.

Re:Of course they did

[Lucidus]

In every decade since I was born (in the early 50's), the FBI has engaged in egregious misconduct, although sometimes we didn't find out about it until years later. I am amazed that they have any credibility left, and puzzled that people continue to act surprised when these things come to light.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, just find me an alternative that's better.

It's called actually getting to know the candidate and voting candidate by candidate, rather than by party.

Parties are nothing more than corporations and when you vote for corporations instead of people, you're putting that which is evil (corporate America) in charge of the only entity that can protect us from that evil, our Government.

Re:Of course they did

[afaik_ianal]

No, it's your forefathers that are to blame.

While they got heaps of stuff right, FPP voting breeds two-party systems. It's a classic moral dilemma: People who vote for "the better of two evils" get more power from their vote that people who vote for a third party.

No, you guys need a preferential or proportional system - then you don't have to throw your vote away for the sake of making a point.

Re:Of course they did

[IndustrialComplex]

What we need is a long, continuously updated list of every time our concerns have been assuaged by a promise that "the new powers will only be used in these specific and necessary circumstances". Then we add to the list documentary evidence of those promises being broken. Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.

I think I saw that list. It's in the dictionary.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unity

Re:Of course they did

[IndustrialComplex]

That won't accomplish anything. The proles will just change the channel to their "American Idol" or other similar drivel when they get bored. The American public is too apathetic about the political institution in this country to actual pay attention to what it does or to even have a hope of real change.

And if you need another example. Just change "American Idol" to Slashdot.

Re:Of course they did

[jhoegl]

Although I wish differently, this is correct.
It is interesting to note how many people are apathetic to anothers plight until they have knowledge of a person that they are close to in that same plight.
While it is true we can not fix the world, we can at least listen and give voice to our opposition.
Unfortunately, even those that speak of these incidents are also under attack, labeled as "liberal" or "democrat" which somehow translates to "Commies".
Brain washed masses indeed.

Re:Of course they did

[ChatHuant]

term limits should be ONE. period - no renewals. that removes the 'profit incentive' or rather, the come-back-to-get-more-power incentive. you get one term to make a difference and then you're back to your old job; but with oversight to ensure you didn't make some sweetheart deals for post-office kickbacks.

Except it won't work. If the official in question knows he won't be in power again, he has no good reason to fix anything; it's not like *he*'ll have to deal with the consequences. On the contrary, he'll have a strong incentive to fill his pockets as much and as quickly as he can, since it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Something similar happened in Eastern Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ottoman sultans named merchants of Greek origin as delegate rulers of some of the vassal countries. Those Phanariots got the nomination via massive bribes, and, once the rulership was obtained, their main objective was to recoup the expenses and get rich quick, before somebody else replaced them, That led to massive mismanagement, excessive taxes and general misrule.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is a long, continuously updated list of every time our concerns have been assuaged by a promise that "the new powers will only be used in these specific and necessary circumstances". Then we add to the list documentary evidence of those promises being broken.

Start with the Magna Carta and work forward?
_EVERY_ time the government is given a power it is eventually abused.

Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.

If any reading is done in front of legislators, it should at least start with the bill itself.

Re:Of course they did

[hedwards]

That's non sequitor, there's nothing wrong with First-past-the-post system. The problem is that the voters reward people for behaving poorly in office. There is no system I've ever heard of where the voters get the decision and where there's protection from voters making poor decisions. In the vast majority of races every election there's at most 3 people running and often times there's only 2 or 1 candidate.

You're not going to solve the problem with a change of voting system as long as corporations are allowed to make donations. Just look at what's happening in other countries with different systems of election.

Re:Of course they did

[hedwards]

Keep in mind that it was formed during the great depression to take on Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly and John Dillinger. The focus from the get go was on results over process. It's a lot better now than it was under J. Edgar Hoover, but that's not really saying much. The first crop of agents were trained very quickly to shoot first and ask questions later if ever.

Re:Of course they did

[c0lo]

In every decade since I was born (in the early 50's), the FBI has engaged in egregious misconduct, although sometimes we didn't find out about it until years later. I am amazed that they have any credibility left, and puzzled that people continue to act surprised when these things come to light.

Is everybody in U.S. of A born in the '50?Are there extensive history classes on FBI abuses, perhaps ending with an exam, on the topic?

Re:Of course they did

[gandhi_2]

Like Net Neutrality?

Or are you the only one allowed to use the "slippery-slope" argument?

Re:Of course they did

[MoonBuggy]

I may be missing something obvious here, but I don't see what you're getting at regarding net neutrality; are you saying 'we' broke a promise made about that?

Re:Of course they did

[dbarclay10]

Of course they did If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

Let me fix that for you: If you give anybody (particularly an asshole) an inch, they take a mile. Oh, and cops are generally assholes.

Re:Of course they did

[gandhi_2]

I'm saying the "slippery-slope" gets a double standard around here.

Government regulation of the internets? There's no way that could go wrong!

Law enforcement activities? OMG! Give them and inch and they take a mile!!! Patriot Act!!! ATTICA!!!

If we need a list of thing the government STARTED with then expanded their grasps to include, and never relinquished control of, you might just find quite a few of the things you agree with and kept quiet about.

Re:Of course they did

[Belial6]

No, but since 1950 was 60 years ago, the majority of people have were born since then, and all of them have spent over half their life living in post 1950.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporatism started in the US in 1779... IMO they knew what they were doing

Re:Of course they did

[MoonBuggy]

OK, I see where you're coming from now, but I disagree with your conclusion. I'm not making a point in either direction about government control in general, I'm talking about dishonesty - if they introduced a net neutrality bill and their actions remained within its remit, that's fine, if their actions go beyond that remit, even in a manner that I happen to agree with, that's unacceptable. If they introduce a security bill and stay within its remit, same applies - I might object to the bill itself, but I would respect their integrity in creating it.

It's not that complicated to realise that one can object to something on general principle even if it happens to be beneficial in that specific case. To do otherwise would be to exhibit exactly the hypocrisy that I am decrying.

Re:Of course they did

[interkin3tic]

Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.

We do. It doesn't make it onto fox news.

Re:Of course they did

[afaik_ianal]

Just look at what's happening in other countries with different systems of election.

Lets see:

  * Australia. Lower house is representative preferential, upper house is technically preferential too, but with a proportional bent (multi-seat voting). While there are two main parties in Australia, neither has a majority in either house. Until recently, there was a viable third party - a role slowly being taken up by the Greens at the moment. Lower house has a significant number of Independents. There are a number of instances of seats being won by candidates who polled quite badly on their primary vote, but were outright preferred over the major parties.

* Holland. Bicameral proportional system, with 10 parties in each of their two houses of parliament. Neither house is controlled by a majority. In fact no *two* parties could even band together to form a majority in either house.

* New Zealand. Unicameral proportional system with direct representation: Single house with 50% representative FPP seats, and 50% "list" seats which are granted to parties in such a way that parliament becomes proportional. Again, currently two main parties, but neither has a majority of seats. Parliament is made up of 8 parties in total.

* Switzerland. Bicameral proportional: 6 parties in each house, with the greatest proportion being 31%.

Compare with:
  * USA: Bicameral FPP with separate executive. Each house is made up of exactly 2 parties. One party, "the winner", holds an absolute majority, while the other party, "the loser" holds virtually no power. The only saving grace is the split terms of the senate, where you might get lucky and have each house independently controlled ("a tie"). In such cases, the two parties are said to "compromise", by filibustering.

Re:Of course they did

[c0lo]

No, but since 1950 was 60 years ago, the majority of people have were born since then, and all of them have spent over half their life living in post 1950.

I was just trying to offer some clues for your "puzzlement that people continue to act as surprised". My point: I suppose you aren't surprised that new generations keep coming and, not having the whole knowledge/experience of a born-'50-er, they might be genuinely surprised. Even if only acting, I'm still happier with this faked reaction than I am with the "and how's this new?" one.

Speaking for myself (a whole 15 years younger), I'm puzzled rather by "Would the politicians never learn?"

Re:Of course they did

[TaoPhoenix]

Just for a moment let's give the public a mite more credit. I peg them at "we're upset but what can we really do?"

60's style protests don't work anymore. The tempo is wrong - Gov makes a 3/4 concession, keeps 1/4 of the evil, then slides a nasty twist on their concession as a dessert. Thing is, there's no "timeline" on this one - there's no "are we done yet" to know when we can do the 50's period of recovery. It's a thundering case of cabin fever where we all go crazy.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but supporting rational procedure and transparency for our elected officials is tantamount to heresy in the medias eyes. The more important point is that fighting or fixing flaws institutionalized into the system is the most difficult proposition one can undertake against politics. I mean, your asking those with the power to change how they wield the very thing that they strive to acquire.

Re:Of course they did

[fishexe]

What we need is a long, continuously updated list of every time our concerns have been assuaged by a promise that "the new powers will only be used in these specific and necessary circumstances". Then we add to the list documentary evidence of those promises being broken.

Start with the Magna Carta and work forward? _EVERY_ time the government is given a power it is eventually abused.

The Magna Carta didn't give the government any powers. The King of England was presumed an absolute authority (by divine right) and the Magna Carta constrained him in certain ways.

Re:Of course they did

[MrKaos]

The American public is too apathetic about the political institution in this country to actual pay attention to what it does or to even have a hope of real change.

It's not that they're apathetic, it's that they just don't care...

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect.

"In 1886, the Supreme Court, in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, found that the states had no power to regulate interstate commerce. The resulting Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 created a Federal responsibility for interstate law enforcement. The Justice Department made little effort to relieve its staff shortage until the turn of the century, when Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte reached out to other agencies, including the Secret Service, for investigators. But the Congress forbade this use of Treasury employees by Justice, passing a law to that effect in 1908. So the Attorney General moved to organize a formal Bureau of Investigation (BOI or BI), complete with its own staff of special agents. The Secret Service provided the Department of Justice 12 Special Agents and these agents became the first Agents in the new BOI. Thus, the first FBI agents were actually Secret Service agents. Its jurisdiction derived from the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.[17][18] The FBI grew out of this force of special agents created on July 26, 1908 during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Its first official task was visiting and making surveys of the houses of prostitution in preparation for enforcing the "White Slave Traffic Act," or Mann Act, passed on June 25, 1910. In 1932, it was renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation. The following year it was linked to the Bureau of Prohibition and rechristened the Division of Investigation (DOI) before finally becoming an independent service within the Department of Justice in 1935.[17] In the same year, its name was officially changed from the Division of Investigation to the present-day Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI." Wikipedia

FBi agents were also not allowed to carry firearms until June 18, 1934. SO the first crop of agents were NOT allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. Additionally, the BOI, later renamed to FBI had incredibly restricted powers. It was not until the "lawless year" that the FBI started to grow in power and until the Lindburgh kidnapping, they had very very little.

Re:Of course they did

[MrKaos]

Just for a moment let's give the public a mite more credit. I peg them at "we're upset but what can we really do?"

Lobby. They have computers, they have word processors. 1 letter and a mail merge reaches a whole lot of politicians. I've done it and it works. They will ignore an email but a respectful single page letter gets a lot of attention. So apathy is a pretty good description.

Best regards

John Citizen

Re:Of course they did

[CycleMan]

California has already tried term limits. The San Jose Mercury News did a recent series on the impact. One link and another link to start your reading.

Since I RTFAs, here's the basic point: lobbyists "guided" inexperienced legislators, writing bills and lining up folks to speak on their behalf. 1 of 3 bills was sponsored by lobbyists, and half of sponsored bills became law as compared to only 20% of unsponsored bills. The lobbyists are now the "privileged class" to use your words, and are guiding legislators to cut their clients big fat checks from the state treasury. So term limits are not the answer; they weaken our ability to support good people and vote out the bums, since the power moved to the unelected lobbyists.

Re:Of course they did

[Belial6]

I wasn't the one that claimed surprise. But, the poster that did, pointed out that the abuses have been continues. As in there is no one alive today that has not seen it. Being born in 1920 means you saw it. Being born in 1930 means you saw it. Same for 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. Everyone old know what the FBI is has seen abuses by the FBI. That was the OP's point.

Re:Of course they did

[JWSmythe]

Well, what I would see happening is a serious civil "unrest". It would be when the people take back their power from the government, and act in ways the people want.

Consider what has happened in the past. Not only in the short past of the United States of America, but all around the world.

Those with the ability organize and do things for change. That isn't misguided attempts drawn from the rantings of a horrible example of a pseudo-leader.

It is all of us, forming to stand up against what is wrong. "Legal" methods may not be enough. A letter writing campaign, and a few hundred of your friends standing on the sidewalk in front of the Congressional buildings with signs and chanting the slogan of the moment obviously has no effect. The 60's style protests didn't work in the 60's. They are, and always will be, an ineffective form of protest.

I have to say the following disclaimer. Assume it's in huge bolt text, flashing at you. I AM NOT RECOMMENDING, SUGGESTING, OR OTHERWISE INCITING ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

Before anyone reads any farther, go read that statement again. If you still don't get it, put down your gun and your beer, sober up, and read it again until it makes sense.

So what would it take to bring change?

60's sit-ins, peaceful protests, peaceful assemblies, petitions, letter writing campaigns, and free-love-ins, just won't work. Well, I'm still for the free-love-ins, but we'll save those for another conversation. :)

The "Rally to Restore Sanity" brought about 250,000 people to Washington DC, and countless others who couldn't attend who supported from home. I was one of the later, as I couldn't afford to drive, fly, or walk to DC.

With 250,000 people standing there wanting to make change, they made speeches, and went home. The folks in power may have noted that something happened, but really their appearance didn't do anything except raise the total tourism dollars for DC by a little for 2010.

If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings).

I would personally be proud to walk to the front of the group, stand in front of the representatives who are doing wrong and say "Sir, I represent these people, citizens of the United States of America. We do not believe that you are representing the needs, wants, and beliefs of the constituents who you have sworn to represent. We as the representatives of your constituents we respectively ask you to resign immediately and exit this building."

There are plenty of people among us, who would be excellent leaders. We wouldn't accept corruption. We have better morals than to take bribes in any form.

That sir, is how you make change in a totally non-violent way. Not one shot is fired. Not one person is injured (except for maybe the occasional trip and fall hazard). The only violence would come from the law enforcement professionals who some may take an unconstitutional stand against the people.

It is said that we have the "Four boxes of liberty", the soap, ballot, jury, and ammo boxes. There is no need to go to the fourth, unless the powers that be decide to use it against the citizens standing up for their rights. In reality, a couple hundred thousand people standing there saying "we want change", and really meaning it, do not have any reason to use violence. Well, except for possibly gently moving anyone who may try to block their way. You can be assured that someone in a uniform will

Re:Of course they did

[mug funky]

"the only entity that can protect us from that evil, ourselves!"

FFY

Re:Of course they did

[MartinSchou]

Until someone finds out that a questionable legal wire tap implicated them in some sort of crime, which could lead to serious jail time through new means, they could care less.

So what you're saying is that they care at least a little bit?

I'll let David Mitchell elaborate.

Re:Of course they did

[Lucidus]

Thank you for your spirited, and accurate, defense of my original comment. I was particularly thinking of officials in both law enforcement and government when I chose the phrase 'act surprised.' They cannot be excused on the basis of ignorance. Even for the general populace, FBI misconduct has been so frequent and so blatant that only the newest of newbies will not have encountered it before.

Re:Of course they did

[FoolishOwl]

If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

As does ANY unchecked power bloc, including various non-state and semi-state actors.

Re:Of course they did

[Lucidus]

I emphatically did not intend to say 'and how's this new?' Even though such things have happened many times before, each new incident is an outrage. The FBI wants to be treated as the most respected law enforcement agency in the nation, and yet demonstrates complete disrespect for the letter and spirit of the law. I am thus angry and skeptical, and frustrated that more others are not.

Re:Of course they did

[Philotic]

60's style protests don't work anymore.

That's just what they want you to think.

Re:Of course they did

[c0lo]

I am thus angry and skeptical, and frustrated that more others are not.

Shared feelings - same on my side.
On the matter of form, better expressed now than the castrated original "puzzled" term you used.

Re:Of course they did

[JWSmythe]

Why yes, they could care a little, but likely not a lot. But...

    I don't care much what David Mitchell, his dumb dog, or his soap box think.

    I think you'll find this far more educational. Also, you may enjoy this video.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
 
Looks like strike three from here.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the FBI is largely ineffective compared to other law enforcement agencies. The goal was always to demonstrate that the fed govt was keen on stopping interstate crime, particularly in its original mandate to stop kidnapping.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for a moment let's give the public a mite more credit. I peg them at "we're upset but what can we really do?"

Well they can start by turning off their normal "News" stations, and switch their TV over to CSPAN.
Then they can call whatever political party they are a member of and cancel their membership.
Then they can stop voting against people, and start voting for people who they actually think will be good leaders.

Or to put it another way, they can try doing anything other than sitting around on their asses bitching about how they don't like shit. Well, when you allow people to spoon-feed you and change your diaper and wipe your ass, you tend to end up living at their mercy.

Re:Of course they did

[cheekyjohnson]

Then what do you propose people do? Let the internet be ruined by corporations? Net neutrality, unlike the Patriot Act or other such things, is actually intended to do something good. No matter how you look at it, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and unjust in the first place. All we can do is reject net neutrality until the government comes up with a plan that is nothing but.

Re:Of course they did

[Stray7Xi]

Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:

-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on.
-The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge
-The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law.

I would say reprimand the manager and remove him from leadership. Rotate lawyers so they don't get complacent. Finally reprimand the individual and require he have oversight by a coworker for a period. Then conduct retraining of whole office by legal.

The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness. That's the difference between a novice and an experienced bowler. When it happens it's probably because the individual wasn't trained well enough or didn't have good enough access to legal. I think it's a case of Hanlon's Razor.

Re:Of course they did

[Velex]

I AM NOT RECOMMENDING, SUGGESTING, OR OTHERWISE INCITING ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

Then you go on to say

If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings [congressional office buildings]).

Right now I'm imagining it, except they get greeted with riot police telling them to go home because they are demonstrating without a permit.

The rally to restore sanity (and Glenn Beck's rally for that matter) only took place because the powers that be knew that they would do next to nothing.

Would they turn and run as soon as the first police officer showed up? Would they run home after the first tear gas grenade is thrown into the crowd, or the first rubber bullet fired? Unfortunately, I would guess that they would.

Well, they damned better unless you ACTUALLY ARE inciting an illegal activity.

The civil rights movement didn't care about breaking the laws they disagreed with. That's the difference. Non-violent? Yes. Illegal? Also yes.

Re:Of course they did

[rtb61]

Well that's more than a bit silly. Both the Republican and Democratic party are largely fictitious entities, having no real permanent structure or stated and adhered to policies. They are largely nothing more than marketing entities to get politicians nominated in the primaries, once the primaries are over the real election is over and the election is nothing more than a popularity contest to see who wins the profits.

The whole idea in US politics is to win in the primaries, doesn't matter at all whether they are Republican or Democrat primaries, just as long as you candidates not the corporate ones gets up for the election. Just as corporations stack election with their Republican and Democratic candidate, the people can beat the corporations by winning the primaries with better candidates.

This all points to what these FBI investigations are really all about, not crime but politics. About silencing voices at the behest of corporations, about excluding real people from politics by tarnishing there record as citizens. Not government gone wild but government yet again corrupted by private interests, by corporate dollars paying off corrupt government officials. Who is the greater criminal the one that accepts the bribe or the one that pays the bribes and corrupts many people.

Re:Of course they did

[easterberry]

The problem with this is that you assume the people you're marching with have the same idea of what they want as you do.

I can make my army of people for a government that cares about the greater good of the people instead of corporate interest and it sounds nice and all but what does it really mean? Are we saying we want a single payer medical system so the poor don't get left behind? or are we complaining that they even considered such an option? Are we upset about going to war or about leaving too early? Do we need the government to give us more or less gun control and what makes you sure everyone marching all agree on any of these points?

I can make my army of the people, and you can make yours and the government doesn't have to do a thing because we both consider each other a group of dangerous lunatics who must be stopped before they send our country spiraling into a warfare/welfare state. And this isn't because we're brainwashed. It's because we intrinsically don't all agree. That's why the election is so close to 50/50. I think the people who want to run around with guns and hate government healthcare are wrong and they thing the same about me. You can't make an army for the unified voice of the people because there is no "unified voice of the people".

Re:Of course they did

[HungryHobo]

In it's simplest form net neutrality is just old monopoly/fair trading legislation applied to the internet.

That you shouldn't be able to use your advantage in one market to gain an advantage in another.

most of the details are fluff and anything the government actually writes will likely be nothing like that or the complete opposite.
which is depressing.

Re:Of course they did

[dkleinsc]

They will ignore an email but a respectful single page letter gets a lot of attention.

It gets a lot less attention than a single page letter with a campaign check enclosed.

Re:Of course they did

[shentino]

First they came for the...and I did not speak up, for I was not a...

yada yada yada

Re:Of course they did

[dkleinsc]

Except that in this case, the violations were that clear-cut. And the best argument is that all 3 are potentially guilty of a serious crime.

If I go to a lawyer and say "Is it legal to rob a bank?" and the lawyer says "Yes, go right ahead", I'm still in trouble if I go to rob a bank. The lawyer may also be considered a co-conspirator, and at the very least should have his bar membership in question. And anyone I work with as part of the plan is also a co-conspirator. Why would the crime of a FISA violation be any different?

Re:Of course they did

[surmak]

I fear that today there are more people willing to allow the police to crack down, wiretap, and abuse people (as long as they are "different") than there who believe in the rights of ALL to be respected. Some politicians have whipped up people into a fear of terrorists, drugs, and death panels, that if the question to suspend the constitution and implement a police state were put to a vote, the police state would win. We are already seeing people bringing guns to political rallies, and in the last few months there have been numerous acts of political violence, including an assassination attempt on a member of congress. Yet all of these actions have been initiated be people for whom the word freedom means low taxes, and the ability for the rich powerful to use their position to exploit the less well-off. The whole thing seems pretty depressing.

Re:Of course they did

[Sprouticus]

the problem with that is that a lot of people BELIEVE the drivel from their congress-critter, that having TSA check your junk or the FBI circumvent laws is OK in the effort to protect our rights. It is absurd of course, but they are too stupid or too brainwashed to care.

So those people you stand before will simply point to their districts opinion polls and say, I AM representing the will of the people.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

The first crop of agents were trained very quickly to shoot first and ask questions later if ever.

More like shoot first and evade questions later.

Re:Of course they did

[cain]

60's style protests don't work anymore...

Tell that to the Egyptians. They seem to be making a pretty good go of it as we speak. They have not toppled Mubarik yet, but they seem well on their way to doing so. The protests seem to be "working" just fine.

Re:Of course they did

[BLKMGK]

I once argued for term limits with a staffer of one of these guys - someone I knew who had a clue. The point he made in response was that some of our legislation is so complex and the issues so far reaching that particular legislators become experts regarding them and their knowledge of the subject is valuable. You cannot simply toss people out after just one term and expect the next guy to be able to catch-up and move forward before his time is also up. Heck, he might not even be interested or go in a totally different direction which would be jerking everyone around. So while term limits sound good on the surface there needs to be some sort of compromise, one is a bit too short IMO. Sadly I don't know what the answer is and neither did the friend I spoke with who was also quite frustrated about things. Frankly? I think it would be a great idea cap campaign contributions totals, cap campaign spending totals, and figure out a way to do this so they do not begin campaigning to come back on their first damned day! Seriously, it's gotten to the point where the legislature is in CONSTANT campaign mode... How can that be effective?

Re:Of course they did

[memnock]

The 60's style protests don't work because of the lack of stamina of the protestors. What I mean by that is the people protest for one day and think they've made their point. This guy's blog post makes the point better.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:

-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on.
-The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge
-The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law.

Indite them all, let the courts (publicly) sort it out!

Re:Of course they did

[JWSmythe]

    That's why I clarified that I am not suggesting to do it. The remainder was a hypothetical scenario.

Re:Of course they did

[JWSmythe]

So those people you stand before will simply point to their districts opinion polls and say, I AM representing the will of the people.

    That is a calculated risk.

    I'd be willing to bet when faced with a reality such as that, they would be as cowardly as they really are. They can talk shit from the relative safety of standing in front of a camera, or the closed Congressional rooms, or at a rally of only their own supporters. They aren't willing to stand in front of a mixed representative group of their constituents, and spew the same rhetoric.

    The people also tend to show up for "their" candidate, so they have someone to cheer for. Those opposing them rarely show up, and if they do, they are a minority and if they voice their opinions at public meetings, they will quickly be ushered away by security.

    I've noticed a trend at public speaking engagements, where those allowed to voice questions are hand selected or even seeded people who agree with the speakers agenda. You of course get the random person who makes too much noise just for the sake of doing it, such as the "Don't Taze Me Bro" guy, who attempted to grandstand when given the chance to speak. That's not to say that incident was completely appropriate, and even Mr. Kerry was disappointed with the outcome, as he was still trying to keep an open discussion, against the actions of the police.

Re:Of course they did

[Evtim]

Check the uprising during the winter of 1996/1997 in Bulgaria. Hyper inflation started kicking around October/November 1996. By Christmas the total wages of my family went down to 5$...a month! I was starving, for the first and so far last time in my life. I don't dare imagine how my parents felt at the time - their only child not having a piece of bread to eat...

Here is a small excerpt from Wikipedia talking about the prime minister's party at the time:

"The BSP, which still held the majority in Parliament, attempted to form a new cabinet. However, the UDF-headed opposition responded by organizing month-long street protests in big cities, demanding that the parliament should be dissolved and that elections must be held immediately because of the BSP's responsibility for the crisis. The protests culminated in a general strike and a siege of the house of Parliament, which was stormed and set on fire by the protesters."

Notice the word "month-long"? That's right, it took a month of strikes and protests no less, to topple those asses. For one month the capital and other major cities were blocked. No transport. No schools, kindergartens, university...hospitals barely operating, hyper inflation, stores empty....protests every day, people sleeping in front of the parliament, barricades on the roads. As a student I was every day on the streets, for a month...

However, I am afraid that only massive crisis like this one can provoke such response. When there is no bread on the table attitude to life changes dramatically. On a positive note - I have rarely seen such comradeship between citizens like the one during this month. People shared food, cigarettes, transport...everything. There was something in the air....

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

It is clear-cut. The answer is all of the above. The exact punishments and justifications are for a court-room. Of course, the lawyer will probably be able to get a dismissal if they can show they were acting in good faith, and court probably wouldn't punish the manager or individual harshly depending on what the particulars of the case were. They should still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Additionally, you're giving way to much benefit of the doubt here. The EFF claims that FBI agents perjured themselves in a court of law. That's not an accidental crossing of the line. That's a felony.

Re:Of course they did

[JWSmythe]

    Mr. Niemoller speech, in it's various forms, is a good example of what happens when you fail to stand up for what is right, even when it does not directly effect you. Mr Niemoller spent 1937 through 1945 in Nazi prisons. It's not just a random statement that people liked the sentiments of, but a factual one as they did come for him, and they did imprison him. He was to be executed, but was saved by American solders on May 5th, 1945.

    Things could have been much different, if the population had acted differently. Hindsight is 20/20, but we must learn from history if we do not wish to repeat it.

Re:Of course they did

[hedwards]

Just keep telling yourself, the number of parties has absolutely nothing to do with the problem. The whole how many parties are involved thing has absolutely nothing to do with the problems which a system may or may not have. They've also got more parties in Britain than we do in the US, but they have much more serious problems in terms of abuse of power by the government than we do. How does that factor into your hypothesis?

Re:Of course they did

[Hatta]

Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:

-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on.
-The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge
-The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law

All of the above. I think you'll find that if you were ordered to commit a crime by your management, and advised that it was legal to do so by your companies lawyers, that the government will still prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. We should give the government the same treatment we expect from them.

The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness

Constantly pushing towards the edge is itself an act of maliciousness. There's a reason that borders in contention have a demilitarized zone. Lines get crossed, stay far away from them if you don't want to deal with the consequences.

Re:Of course they did

[hedwards]

You say incorrect, but except in one detail you're agreeing with me. You're right it wasn't the first crop as trained, but it was within weeks of becoming the FBI that agents were being retrained to handle firearms. For somebody that's quoting wikipedia, you've got very little understanding of the history you're talking about. The United States Bureau of Investigation has basically nothing to do with the FBI as it was a completely different organization and didn't have the ability to handle pursuits of suspects across jurisdiction which would become one of the most important features of the FBI.

Re:Of course they did

[eepok]

It's worth a shot. You can fail to attempt and you can fail to succeed. I'd rather fail to succeed than simply defeat myself in battle.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's a very popular phenomenon that everyone thinks everyone else is an idiot.

We can't have intelligent humor in movies and television because no one will understand it... except for me.
Everyone is an idiot on the road... except for me.
No one cares about the true state of the political system... except for me.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, just find me an alternative that's better.

You got it. Here's the better alternative: almost anything. Let's look at this worst-case unrealistic scenario that you put forth, that there is no one any better.

Suppose you find another party who is no worse (but also no better) than the Republicrats, from your own point of view and opinion. There are probably half a dozen parties like that, as well as some independents. If you vote for them, you undermine the big-two party dominance. If enough people vote for them, so that they start winning, the parties will start to lose power and you will see more diversity. There is no way that even your pessimistic scenario of nothing better out there, can survive such a situation.

To put it another way, the way to get something better, is to decentralize the power. When you've got 10 names on the ballot for each office instead of the usual 1-3, the chances of finding something better are far higher.

Re:Of course they did

[BetterSense]

Your hypothetical crowd of 250,000 scenario is interesting, but it will never happen for the same reason that the real crowd of 300 million citizens is not doing anything...the High Noon effect. You will never get 250,000 people to act in concert.

There are 300 million people in the US, correct for age and physical capability and you have tens of millions of able-bodied, decent, hardworking Americans, who feel that they are powerless against the few hundred politicians that are selling this country out. Why don't they do anything? Because they don't see themselves as a mass of people.

It's this same effect that allows a few lightly armed prison guards to corral and torture hundreds of POWs. I was reading the book Ghost Soldiers and it struck me over and over while the POWs were being marched overland by the Japanese that if the POWs would just act in concert, they would be 50+ men for each prison guard. They couldn't possibly lose. But they don't act in concert. Every now and then one POW tries to do something and gets killed or tortured for it, and nobody wants to be that guy. It's the same thing with the millions of Americans versus the few hundred politicians that are selling out the USA. Nobody wants to be that One Guy, because any One Guy who tries to effect any change will 1) fail due to lack of support 2) have his life ruined, for no benefit (see 1). How do you mobilize the millions? I guess you need a leader to mobilize them; I dunno. It's interesting to think about.

Re:Of course they did

[sconeu]

If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings [congressional office buildings]).

Right now I'm imagining it, except they get greeted with riot police telling them to go home because they are demonstrating without a permit.

The United States Constitution, First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis mine)

Re:Of course they did

[cayenne8]

"While it is true we can not fix the world, we can at least listen and give voice to our opposition. Unfortunately, even those that speak of these incidents are also under attack, labeled as "liberal" or "democrat" which somehow translates to "Commies".

Err...in exactly what reality have the liberals/democrat/commies been any more attentive, or responsive to listening to the opposition, or caring about the plight of others...in this case US Federal breaches of private citizens' rights...than the republicans or any other political faction over there?

Re:Of course they did

[cayenne8]

"The 60's style protests don't work because of the lack of stamina of the protestors. What I mean by that is the people protest for one day and think they've made their point."

And that day better be a WEEKEND day too....'cause I really don't have time to miss work, etc. Many of us out here have obligations and can't just afford to drop everything that supports our daily life, to do a protest.

Re:Of course they did

[cayenne8]

"That won't accomplish anything. The proles will just change the channel to their "American Idol" or other similar drivel when they get bored. The American public is too apathetic about the political institution in this country to actual pay attention to what it does or to even have a hope of real change."

I am, however...more than a little surprised at the fact that the Egypt protest thing has occupied the news....so much so, that the Charlie Sheen hookers-coke-hospital incident received very light attention!!!

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the problems is there are usually no stated penalties for a government officials failure to follow the law. The laws usually just say "don't do this". Where as criminal laws is written "if you do this your penalty is X years in jail". I would cheer if some parts of Federal/State laws on civil rights were modified to include criminal penalties. An example would be "if you violate a persons 4th amendment rights, you go to prison for five years". I am dubious as to its effectiveness though, prosecutors currently HAVE fallbacks to prosecute many abuses of civil rights, they just CHOOSE not to use them. If a police officer beats someone without cause they are prosecutable for assault, officers are usually only protected from prosecution during "official duties", you would be hard pressed to argue that a beatdown is an official police duty (at least legally). You could make similar arguments for illegal searches (Trespassing), illegal arrests (unlawful detainment), etc, But prosecutors don't use them, likely out of fear that police departments would sabotage their prosecution efforts to spite them. Our only option might be to create regional "misconduct boards", similar to juries they would be randomly assigned several cases of reported government official misconduct (police, regulator, etc) and subpoena whiteness to testify on the event in question, a 50% vote by the board would push the case to a "special prosecutor" with no ties to the police who would prosecute the case in front of a full jury. All in all though, the basic rule is we need to have a third party police the government, "self

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

protests dont work because nobody cares about them enough to actually do anything, everyone forgets about the issue within a week, repeat

Re:Of course they did

[Joe Snipe]

I've done it and it works.

Bullshit. What exactly did you do and what exactly did it cause?

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet neither camp has an excuse for having politicians pocketing money during the ensuing argument.

Re:Of course they did

[sorak]

First they came for the...and I did not speak up, for I was not a...

yada yada yada

And that is why people tend to ignore the problem. There are several ways to look at this scenario:

Someone doesn't get the proper warrant, and a "bad guy" is let off on a technicality.

or

The Feds broke the law, and the government had to intervene to protect a citizen's rights

or

Someone did something I disagree with and that makes them Hitler.

Can we please let the third argument die?

Re:Of course they did

[TheGratefulNet]

so, get rid of the CONCEPT of lobbiests.

I meant to say that, too ;)

those guys are a pox on our system. a laughing stock, at best. corruption, just renamed.

they are the reason why there is a money incentive.

GET RID OF THEM. we fix many things that way.

the only conduit to the representatives should be via the people. the pigs in the middle are not serving OUR interests. GET RID OF THEM.

Re:Of course they did

[TheGratefulNet]

The point he made in response was that some of our legislation is so complex and the issues so far reaching that particular legislators become experts regarding them and their knowledge of the subject is valuable.

if the issues are so complex, it would seem that they've been MADE complex by the way the system works.

I'm asking for fundamental change, not tweaks. if you tweak a bad system, you don't get huge performance gains and you still have a support nightmare. redo the system when its that broken. that is what I'm referring to.

I also would want about 1/1000 the # of laws we have now. too many to manage, too many bought-and-paid-for items and too many one-offs to be useful.

our system is in need of a revolution, not a tweak.

Re:Of course they did

[CycleMan]

It's a great idea in concept, but how would it work in practice? Would we say that nobody is allowed to speak on behalf of more than one person at a time? Those who can are more informed about the overall impact to society, and their input is more valuable by being more representative than the folks who only know about themselves. Would you deny anyone with a title of authority or connectedness (CEO, VP, Mayor, Manager, School Principal, Union Representative) the opportunity to talk with anyone who makes laws? That cuts against freedom of association, and possibly freedom of speech.

Now what I might suggest instead is to make the legislature part-time, and much larger number of folks. Look at New Hampshire -- I believe there are 300 representives for that tiny state. That keeps the ability to influence down a lot.

Re:Of course they did

[MrKaos]

I've done it and it works.

Bullshit. What exactly did you do and what exactly did it cause?

With a mail merge I lobbied;

both sides of the Parliament against a bill proposed (and expected to pass) to enact law to subject websites to the same ratings systems that movies and TV programs have to conform to. The bill did not pass. I received replies from many ministers and was invited to be an advisor for the house on Information Technology issues.

against a bill designed to outlaw network security tools and apply a maximum 15 years jail for those who possessed them. I received no replies as many others lobbied as well. The bill was defeated.

for modification to anti-terrorism laws against body cavity searches of minors, strict lianbility and other modifications to the wording of the bill (I read the entire bill and made notes). I realised that nothing was going to stop that bill from passing but that some of its affects could be mitigated by simple wording changes. I noted that most of the changes I proposed were carried.

So I call your claim of bullshit and I raise you a 'fuck off'. I'll also presume your cynicism has prevented you from doing anything. It's often used as an excuse by apathetic people.

Re:Of course they did

[Joe Snipe]

Ah, so you've achieved progress in a non-US government, which was not all what was implied.

Try it on a congressmen, I assure you they are quite a different breed.

Re:Of course they did

[jwhitener]

Thanks for that post. I keep hearing "term limits, term limits!" (usually from people on the right) but I know that it won't fix the problem.

I am of the opinion that money needs to be excluded from our generous freedom of speech. Candidates would only get a set amount of campaign funds after getting enough people to sign a petition. That set amount of funds would come along with a set amount of TV time, a required number of televised debates, and rules prohibiting PACS or other 3rd parties from running any political issue ads.

3rd party rules would, necessarily, also need to infringe upon the ability of news organizations to be blatantly biased. The UK and other countries have much stricter libel and slander laws. Here is the US, when it comes to politics, you are basically immune to libel and slander laws. That needs to end. Propagating blatant falsehoods needs to stop. An uninformed electorate has no chance.

And while we can likely remove the most blatant bias in news with law, we won't get rid of it completely. That is why, like public funds for candidates would remove money incentives, the US needs a strong public news agency, that is run on one of the major TV stations. Those are public airways. We need to reclaim one station for public funded news (or rotate each year to a new station, abc, then nbc, then fox, etc..).

I know we Americans deeply value our freedom of speech, but until money is completed removed from the political process, we will continue to elect corporatists, not true republicans or true democrats (there are a few left).

Re:Of course they did

[MrKaos]

Ah, so you've achieved progress in a non-US government, which was not all what was implied.

Try it on a congressmen, I assure you they are quite a different breed.

I don't care. "What exactly did you do and what exactly did it cause?" was your question to me so now you can tell me what you have attempted or actually achieved that justifies that presumption?

The EFF's findings are completely structural issues, and are *exactly* the scenarios I faced in my country except that you have more rights under your constitution than I do under mine and I keep going - what your excuse? The things that are *possible* under our constitution are completely impossible under yours. So don't take it personally, but it's that attitude that is a big motivator for apathetic behavior - if you choose to wallow there then just be silent. If you want to believe you are powerless in the "land of the free" then don't spend your energy de-motivating others who want to actually participate in democracy as you just assist manifesting that powerlessness. That's what vested interests want.

If you are going to attempt to use your cynicism to hide your apathy then the only conclusion left to draw is that it's you that's bullshitting me. Don't attempt to discount my achievements just because you are too much of a coward to stand up for your own rights in your own country.

Re:Of course they did

[randyleepublic]

And I want guns *and* socialized medicine, (you know, to fix all the wounded), so where does that leave us?

Re:Of course they did

[Phoghat]

"American Idle" is more like it. Then we always have Glen Beck to fall back on and tell us what we should be thinking

Sometimes I think that J. Edgar is still alive directing the whole thing from a cryogenics lab deep below ground in the F. B. I. building

Re:Of course they did

[clydemaxwell]

I don't believe GP was referring to any supposed holiness of the democratic party, but rather that democrat and liberal have become derogatory terms to many and are used in lieu of 'commie' as an epithet. Last election I actually saw a smear ad that consisted of nothing more than pointing out that the opponent was a democrat, hung out with democrats, etc. No track record mention at all.

Re:Of course they did

[clydemaxwell]

our opponents in congress are not 'evil' -- they are dogged. when defeated on a bill, they will continually re-introduce it, and rewordings of it, as new bills or new sections of wanted bills. many people on both sides of the aisle feel they are under attack by their counterparts, and must take whatever steps are necessary to insure their freedoms.

of course, the same number of corrupt and greedy politicians exist, but the real threat now is the persistence and bull-headedness of each party in getting their own way, each believing they truly represent the wishes of the american people.

Re:Of course they did

[clydemaxwell]

mod parent up, if a foreigner can be this positive about our government, we've got a lot to learn.

Re:Of course they did

[clydemaxwell]

unfortunately your actions prove the contrary: the rally to restore sanity, as with the anti-war rallies and demonstrations, have had no measurable success in changing policy.

i should also note that the soap box is the only box left available to us: the ballots are rigged, we've been explicitly forbidden from exercising jury nullification or serving if we are even aware of the practice, and strict gun laws.. aren't even an issue, because even if you owned an assault rifle, the military owns UAVs and predator missiles.

Re:Of course they did

[eam]

How about a single page letter with a cancelled campaign check made out to the opposition?

Re:Of course they did

[Joe Snipe]

I'm not discounting your achievements, I was genuinely hoping that you had evidence anecdotal or otherwise that someone was able to successfully lobby the American government and achieve positive change. It is something I have never seen- not once.

In response to the rest of your vitriol I am not trying to de-motivate anyone, but would rather they spend that motivation on something that could actually affect change. Perhaps in your country writing a letter will get you an actual response, but from my experience in writing to my congressmen we receive form letters in return, presumably sent by an under-staffer.

Re:Of course they did

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be wonderful if 200,000 people in washington demanding our constitutional rights be upheld. unfortunately we have allowed our government to become exactly what the pilgrims and young settlers came to America to get away from and improve upon. The rich capitalist are enforcing martial law attitudes on all of us who are not considered upper class wealthy. They have the money so they have the power they destroy any and all programs and efforts made to equalize mankind to keep the little man down it no longer matters the color of your skin it is all based on your tax bracket. The government has been doing all these illegal disrespectful unconstitutional and immoral acts upon our people since j edgar hoover made the BI into the FBI when baby face nelson and john dillinger were running the streets of chicago. How do you think they were able to take out 120 mafia wiseguys all at the same time on the same day throughout the U.S. every phone call ever made EVERY ONE is recorded it goes thru a central computer and is sorted for key words like bomb president capital etc. in a conversation then it spits out a warning and they go illegally tap your phone that how they get probable cause. The line men for the phone company go out climb their poles tap into home phone lines and listen to private conversations everyday of the week to check the service lines in their service area. My brother in law worked for them for 20 years and oh the stories he told
 

Re:Of course they did

[Geminii]

Yeah, but who are you going to get to prosecute them.

Wikileaks. :)

How long?

[Zeroblitzt]

How long until this is swept under the rug and American Idol is the headline news again?

Re:How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

"EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau's intelligence investigation practices" (emphasis mine). I'd say this won't even get to headline news in the first place.

Re:How long?

[Amorymeltzer]

No need. Our congress voted immunity to the telecoms who violated the law and our privacy, so of course they'll do the same for an agency actually part of the government. Using laws to sanction violations of the law is perverse but hey, you gotta protect your own! These FOIAs are from 2008 or so, so the real test is to file now and see if anything has changed since Obama took over the executive.

Re:How long?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Uh, it never came out from under the rug. You will hear nothing of this on any cable or radio station.

Re:How long?

[PPH]

Joe sixpack: "Just who are these EFFing people anyway?"

Re:How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe sixpack: "Just who are these EFFing people anyway?"

Joe sixpack's buddy: "They are an internet group, you know, like those WikiLeaks people."

Re:How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry, the 2nd-amendment crowd will protect us from this gov't over-reach ...

Re:How long?

[pasv]

Who should we place more blame in though? The journalists making American Idol news such a priority or a populous ripe with apathy? It saddens me to think of either scenario as being true, but I know.

Re:How long?

[Legion303]

"Who should we place more blame in though? The journalists making American Idol news such a priority or a populous ripe with apathy?"

The journalists. It's not their job to cater to the lowest common denominator, it's their job to report the fucking news.

Re:How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe: Oh, so they're tradors[sic], eff 'em.

Re:How long?

[BLKMGK]

Thank 60Minutes. It wasn't until that show proved that money could be made with a news program that things went from objective reporting to "how the heck can we get them to watch OUR news program?". It's been downhill ever since and no I'm not saying 60 Minutes was a bad program but it showed news directors they could make their network cash which wasn't the case previously. When it became a dog and pony show with each trying to outdo the other we were doomed. It doesn't help that the news organizations have been allowed to consolidate into the hands of the few. If they don't want you to know about it you won't in the popular media..

You think???

[Anonymous Coward]

For the greater good. For your own safety. In the name of truth, justice and the american way. Gotta stop the terrorists. We're the government. If you don't like it, go live with the rest of the unamerican world. If anyone is actually surprised by this, then they're seriously out of the loop.

Those in power will use it.

Re:You think???

[gmuslera]

Forgot the "Think of the children". Used to be not so bad, being in power or not, but last decade government got a blank check (Bush reelection) to do anything, no matter how ridiculous were their claims. After that, why stop?

Re:You think???

[monkyyy]

no its always been bad, its the same how we view wars http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
basically we learn more about it faster then it gets better

Correction

[tomthepom]

...and indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible crimes in the 9 years since 9/11.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Correction

[stevenh2]

The government won't do anything about it.

Re:Correction

[Mark19960]

And your right, the government won't do anything about it.
What bothers me about this is that the government is run by people, and it's these people that won't do anything.

It's as if they get a rise out of doing it OR they are content because it's someone else and not them.

Re:Correction

[b4upoo]

I do wish those violations were criminal. During the Bush administration many powers were felt to be within the power of the president under a supposed duty to defend the nation. This polluted reasoning filtered down through the Justice department and people like FBI agents doing all kinds of things were allowed. Since we declined to prosecute the Bush Chaney cabal we somewhat lost any right to go after the lower members of the pecking order. Frankly the entire military chain of command up to and including Bush should have been charged with war crimes. Kangaroo courts and torture and false documents are not part of the American way.

Re:Correction

[noidentity]

How could they have committed any crimes? They're part of the government, silly!

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the SS did not commit any crimes either, being part of the govt.

My new hobby: To Godwin every thread, I can

Re:Correction

[noidentity]

Either people just don't pick up on sarcasm here, or I'm not being obvious enough. To restate, good guys can't commit crimes, only bad guys. If a good guy appears to break the law, it's just him doing a good act and he shouldn't be held accountable.

Re:Correction

[mug funky]

The US government sees state committed crimes as damage and legislates around them...

Re:Correction

[redcaboodle]

Yeah the SS did not commit any crimes either, being part of the govt.

Interesting note: They didn't. Those deeds only became crimes in a legal sense when another government took over.

Re:Correction

[bstender]

What bothers me about this is that the government is run by people, and it's these people that won't do anything.
It's as if they get a rise out of doing it OR they are content because it's someone else and not them.

this is a pretty darned concise observation of the _american_, not just the government people.

Morons

[Charliemopps]

So they release this at the exact same time one of the largest middle eastern countries is undergoing a revolution? I EXPECT the FBI to be pulling shit like this, and rely on organizations like the EFF to uncover it. But if the EFF is so Tech and New Media savvy, it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years? there by assuring it will be completely missed by Mondays new cycle?!?! It's just plain incompetent.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

If ain't one thing, it's another. This story just isn't sexy enough.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that a group should "hold on to the information for a better time" is really not in the public's interest. That is a notion stemming in the mindset that the general public has to be controlled. It also makes it easier to rationalize the idea that there is some information the public doesn't need to know about. If you have the news in your hand, you report/divulge it ASAP. If the timing sucks, well, then it sucks. There are always going to be some people more interested in your news, than whatever other crap is going on in the world/nation.

Re:Morons

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

.... it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years?

I'm fairly certain it will be picked up. Most of the violations were by Special Agent Lindsay Lohan, who posted them from rehab on her Facebook while drunk.

Re:Morons

[c0lo]

But if the EFF is so Tech and New Media savvy, it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information...

Who said that EFF is (or need to be) media savvy?

Just what happen to the position "news of problems need to travel the fastest?" What if the first "slow news day" will come only in 1 year from now?

Should everything be subordinated for the "news-tainment consumers" market segment? Should an organisation focused on "protecting your digital rights" be dumbed down to the level of the society instead of attempting to raise the society to its level?

Re:Morons

[mkiwi]

The idea that a group should "hold on to the information for a better time" is really not in the public's interest

Tell that to the people from Wikileaks. I've been looking forward to the leaks on US banks, but I haven't seen them yet.

If you have the news in your hand, you report/divulge it ASAP. If the timing sucks, well, then it sucks.

Thinking of reporting in "black or white" terms, as you are proposing, fails to take into account the subtleties of human communication. The world has more than 10 options.
(Yeah, I know. I must be new here.)

Re:Morons

[interkin3tic]

So they release this at the exact same time one of the largest middle eastern countries is undergoing a revolution?...But if the EFF is so Tech and New Media savvy, it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years?

I'd question how media savvy YOU are if you think events in another country being the top news story ISN'T a "slow news day" in the US. The average citizen doesn't care much about Egypt. They waited until the media couldn't talk about an American politician having sex, a celebrity dying, a celebrity having sex, or someone blowing something up.

Plus, I've heard plenty of hate here for wikileaks being -too- media savvy, collaborating with media, and releasing it slowly so that the media can't give it just 15 minutes. The good guys are damned if they do, damned if they don't play the game.

Re:Morons

[moortak]

It is hard to raise the level of society if no one can hear you. Waiting for a full on slow news day might not be a great idea, releasing it during the first Monday during a revolt in a major US ally is probably an even worse one. Sometimes you have to use the flightly ADD nature of the news cycle to get the most attention for your point. Even tomorrow would probably be a better choice.

Spies lie?

[gstrickler]

Who would have ever guessed that a group of spies would break the law or lie?

Re:Spies lie?

[sjames]

The FBI isn't supposed to be spies, they're supposed to be detectives. The CIA is for spies.

Re:Spies lie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did the FBI become a spy agency? Last time I checked, they were supposed to be a nationwide police organization, not the domestic equivalent of the CIA.

Re:Spies lie?

[gman003]

Wrong federal agency. The FBI is (approximately) the federal-level police force - they're completely powerless outside the US borders. The CIA is the agency responsible for espionage and counter-espionage (as well as parts of the State Department and the NSA).

Re:Spies lie?

[russotto]

Unless they changed things with the PATRIOT act, the FBI is responsible for counterespionage within US jurisdiction.

Re:Spies lie?

[gstrickler]

And what do you call the people in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division? What do you think they do? The CIA is not chartered to operate counterintelligence operation in the US, that's the FBI's job.

Re:Spies lie?

[sjames]

Special agents of the FBI. Detectives! They are not supposed to be covertly gathering information, they are supposed to stop people covertly gathering information.

That's not to say they aren't doing any domestic spying, just that they're not SUPPOSED to be.

Re:just another event predicted by McNealy's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer this... "You have zero privacy today. Fight for it."

Not a lot statistically.

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary makes it seem like a big number but if the FBI has ~36K people working for it that's just over 1 violation per employee in those 9 years. I'd expect to make at least one mistake in 9 years.

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[PPH]

if the FBI has ~36K people working for it

Does that include the people mopping the floors at HQ?

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd expect to make at least one mistake in 9 years.

Well then you're obviously just a stupid, retarded, mentally-deficient fuck up when compared to the EFF and those who support them because they never ever, ever make any mistakes at all.

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary makes it seem like a big number but if the FBI has ~36K people working for it that's just over 1 violation per employee in those 9 years. I'd expect to make at least one mistake in 9 years.

I'm sure they made more than one mistake per individual. We are not talking about simple mistakes here. We are talking about violating people's civil rights and then covering it up. That's a lot different than someone making a typo or something.

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's the same. The premise of the movie Brazil is that the user's name get's typo-ed at the beginning, and the anti-terrorist group swooped in on the wrong person's house.

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[DeadlyMind]

I would expect mistakes to be made as well, but that's a bit short sighted to assume that all of these are actually mistakes, as opposed to intentional abuses of power.

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[misexistentialist]

"Misconduct" is not "a mistake". You might be used to ending up in jail every 9 years or so, but that's not normal.

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[gstrickler]

While Score < 4
mod +1, Informative.
Wend

Re:Not a lot statistically.

[Anonymous Coward]

1 violation of ones civil rights or liberties is too many.

wow

[buckadude]

that's close to 13 or so violations a day... which is a lot or surprisingly few, depending on how you look at it.

Tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing tomorrow knowing power culture

Re:just another event predicted by McNealy's Law

[PPH]

Yeah. But just try walking down the street without pants and see what happens.

percentages are important

[Anonymous Coward]

It matters if the number of violations is a significant percentage of investigations...
All systems have errors. that has to be expected, it has to be anticipated: whatever you put in place will have errors: thefts, abuses, breakdowns.
It's like the air you breath: it ain't pure. If you want to breathe, there's gonna be some bad stuff in there, always. Has to be.
Perfect cleanliness, being quite next to god, doesn't exist.

Re:percentages are important

[Firehed]

Abuses like this aren't exactly like speeding (which aside from being quite possible to do without trying or even realizing it, is relatively harmless) - you have to go out of your way to set up wiretaps and perform other actions that violate America's core values. I can accept a small handful of instances where the time required to go through the proper channels (warrants, etc) would have taken too long, but that should be the exception rather than the rule - and some five thousand times per year is hardly an exception. That basically means one of three things - the process is broken, these people are doing things they have no need, right, or reason to do, or federal policy has agreed upon our constitution being worthless. If the latter is the case, fine - bring on the revolution, since we've voided the existence of our government and all of the laws it has created.

Re:percentages are important

[c0lo]

It matters if the number of violations is a significant percentage of investigations... All systems have errors. that has to be expected, it has to be anticipated: whatever you put in place will have errors: thefts, abuses, breakdowns. It's like the air you breath: it ain't pure. If you want to breathe, there's gonna be some bad stuff in there, always. Has to be. Perfect cleanliness, being quite next to god, doesn't exist.

It doesn't take much (even when speaking percentage) for something to stink.
It takes only 0.00047 ppm of H2S for 50% of humans to detect a "rotten eggs"-like smell, it takes 100–150 ppm for the optical nerve be paralyzed, it takes 800 ppm for 50% of the humans be dead in 5 mins (should I go ahead an explore hydrogen cyanide?).

In the matter of democracy and freedoms, even a small percentage of "mistakes" (even if when not outright abuses) can be deadly or seriously crippling for the society.

Re:percentages are important

[Phoenix666]

It is clear that the third is the case, and that at this point revolution is the only recourse the American people have to bring their government to heel. Bush started these abuses, Obama is continuing them, and it will get worse. The TSA is groping us; the big banks are plundering our country as fast as they can; Guantanamo is still operating; Congress is proposing a kill switch for the Internet rather than fess up to the misdeeds exposed by Wikileaks; and we still don't have any jobs worth a damn here.

How much more evidence do you need, America?

Re:percentages are important

[shentino]

I already have all the evidence I need.

The question is...what the hell am I actually going to do about it?

Re:percentages are important

[jahudabudy]

,Bush started these abuses,

Hey, I think Bush was just about the worst President we've had in a long long time, but credit where it's due. George Washington (or his administration) started the trend of the executive branch abusing its authority.

2009-2010 are probably just as bad

[Tangential]

They filed their case in early 2009 for documents through 2008. I'd be extremely surprised if anything has changed in 2009 or 2010 (or now in 2011.) Government agencies are not in the habit of giving up powers just because an administration changed. Once you get below the appointee level, its the same folks doing the job regardless of who's running things.

WTF

[Lord Kano]

The FBI has abused its power since its inception. COILTELPRO ring a bell? The FBI has been used to investigate the political enemies of powerful politicians since before most of us were even born. Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?

LK

Re:WTF

[c0lo]

And your point is? Here's the list of extremes, but feel free to explain your position:
1. the FBI must be dismantled as an active organisation
2. the FBI is good and dandy... get over it, there's no right to privacy for anyone.

Re:WTF

[interkin3tic]

Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?

"Should" is one thing, "would" is another altogether. Most voters don't realize that law enforcement isn't always the good guys. They need to be informed each and every time you catch law enforcement acting up, or law enforcement will be allowed to be completely corrupted.

Re:WTF

[Lord Kano]

3. The FBI can be useful in the actual solving of crimes, but to curb abuses we should prosecute Agents, Special Agents, SACs and directors when they're involved in illegal activity instead of wringing our hands like we do now.

LK

Re:WTF

[c0lo]

Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?

...to curb abuses we should prosecute Agents, Special Agents, SACs and directors when they're involved in illegal activity instead of wringing our hands like we do now.

Does EFF sounds to you as an organization with a focus on "wringing their hands"?
Seems to me the first thing one needs to do is to see if (you "when") illegal activity occurred, wasn't this what EFF has set itself to do in this instance?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

COINTELPRO

Re:WTF

[Lord Kano]

You are correct, I fat-fingered it.

LK

USA

[Anonymous Coward]

talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

Average

[meerling]

That works out to more than 12 per day. I wonder what 2009-now looks like.

Colombia

[snookiex]

In Colombia we're going through a similar situation. Now I don't feel so alone *sigh*

Actually, it is a lot less

[Anonymous Coward]

They have identified 800 violations and there were 7000 potential violations that were internally investigated by the FBI. But, in some kind of new math that I don't really understand, the report assumes that there were a bunch more that were not reported and that this number comes out to 40,000.

Re:Actually, it is a lot less

[Anonymous Coward]

So because you don't understand math they are wrong? Seems like that's more your problems than theirs.

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

Re:Actually, it is a lot less

[nedlohs]

That "new math" you don't understand is the simple arithmetic and multiplication the rest of us learned before they let us *into* high school.

Summary for you, the idiot:

1. The data the EFF isn't everything and doesn't claim to be everything, however 33% of the potential violations in that data are NSL violations.
2. Back in 2008, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine told the House Judiciary subcommittee that a 10% review of FBI field office NSLs found 640 potential NSL violations from 2003 to 2006.
3. Oh look primary school math: (640 * 10) / 4 * 8 * 3 = 38,400. Or in words, if 10% were 640 then there were 6400 potential NSL violations over 4 years, so 1600 per year. So over the 8 years the EFF data is for 12800. Those type are 33% in the EFF data so multiply by 3 for 38400.

And yes that's extrapolating an extrapolation. But that make that very clear in their report.

Re:Actually, it is a lot less

[EmagGeek]

You still have not explained where the "40,000" number comes from.

The "38,400" number is derived quite speciously, based upon several assumptions that are not dependable. The assumptions seem to be:

1) There is a uniform distribution of alleged violations across all FBI field offices
2) The rate of violations was also uniformly distributed across all years between 2001 and 2008
3) Non-NSL violations occur at exactly the same frequency as NSL violations

Obviously, all three of these assumptions are total crap and cannot be stated with any level of reasonable certainty. Therefore, it's "new math," and you are the idiot.

Re:Actually, it is a lot less

[nedlohs]

Obviously 38,400 is the 40,000 number.

Those assumptions are all stated plainly (well except 3 which is completely irrelevant) there's no need to make up what they "seem to be". If you think they are invalid then obviously you don't believe the number. That doesn't change the math from being a simple extrapolation.

Thinking the assumptions and hence logic is crap is one thing. Thinking the math is wrong is completely independant.

Calling those assumptions "new math" is just being retarded. The math is the multiplications of the factors, it has nothing to do with whether those factors are actually valid.

Self prosecution? Not likely

[sjbe]

Here's a solution to the problem with the FBI. Prosecute each violation vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law.

You are asking the government to prosecute itself. Without a person at the top with a highly developed sense of morality it isn't likely to happen within the same branch of government. Even with such a person at the top, political reality may make it impossible. That's why we have separation of powers. It will ONLY happen if a different branch of government is the one who decides to press the issue. Expecting the executive branch to spank itself is simply wishful thinking most of the time. If congress or the judiciary can be prodded into action, then something might happen. Otherwise, forget it.

For what it's worth I don't expect much out of Congress either. Very easy to score "soft on crime" political points on someone who criticizes the FBI even if the FBI deserves it.

Re:This is as good of a place as any to stick this

[SuperKendall]

I get where you are coming from but regardless of how you feel about the wars, we stopped fighting a war in Iraq years ago when the people of Iraq decided which side they were on. You only discredit your own argument with the whole "two pointless wars" line; We are only fighting one war. If you are going to go to the effort of writing something like this keep it accurate so the rest of your statements can be taken more at face value.

Re:This is as good of a place as any to stick this

[jmac_the_man]

There was a slashdot story like a month ago about how the authorities DID arrest a DDoSer of Wikileaks, though. Wikileaks DDoS Attacker Arrested; Equipment Seized

Typo fixed

[jmac_the_man]

Wow, I screwed that up. The link is here.

but were they right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they may have violated certain things but were they right on the money at catching the criminals? Everyone is fixated that the government shouldn't be allowed to know certain things or do certain t hings without a warrant but yet they post all their private info on facebook and twitter. I'm not saying I'm for the government knowing all and doing whatever they please, if anything I think the federal government should shrink about 10-15 years but it seems that many forget what kind of people the feds are after. IMO I would rather see the FBI violate some people's freedom than the police but that's just my opinion. If all of those 7000 criminals were somehow murders, rapists, child molesters etc etc... then by all means, I don't care if they don't get a warrant or whatever, get those peeps off the streets ASAP but if there were people who were wrongfully accused because of lack of evidence and stuff... *shakes fist* COMIC SAAAANNNS!!!!! -- span style and font tags don't work? :(

Re:but were they right?

[cbiltcliffe]

If all of those 7000 criminals were somehow murders, rapists, child molesters etc etc... then by all means, I don't care if they don't get a warrant or whatever, get those peeps off the streets ASAP but if there were people who were wrongfully accused because of lack of evidence and stuff...

The problem is, there is no discernible difference to a jury between these two situations:

1. We searched his house and car illegally without a warrant, but found all this evidence. Convict the bastard.

2. We couldn't find any evidence, and didn't have enough probably cause for a warrant, but we're sure the guy's guilty because we don't like his face, so we're just going to say we searched his house and car and found all this evidence, even though we didn't.

Warrantless evidence has a much higher possibility to be fabricated, which is one of the reasons it's not allowed.

COINTELPRO never ended

[alleycat0]

Although the Church Committee ostensibly ended COINTELPRO in 1971, revelations such as these that surface every few years make it clear that such tactics have *never* been abandoned by the FBI.

I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & Orde

[macraig]

You know the shows I'm talking about: the ones that show spooks and law enforcers breaking their own ethical rules (and everyone else's) in the obsessive pursuit of goals and people who have been quietly pre-convicted outside of any court or due process. They just KNOW the person is guilty... they just have to concoct some a-moral scheme to PROVE it!

These shows plant the seed that such behavior is acceptable. It can't help but have repercussions in the real world, humans being as impressionable as they are. It's "the end justifies the means" yet again. Judicial impartiality? What's that?

Who's watching the watchers?

[kawabago]

I think they're asleep.

Re:Who's watching the watchers?

[jdogalt]

It's not at all that those watching the watchers are asleep. In fact, you are replying to an article that proves the exact opposite. No, what my life in the US has taught me, is the utter, utter, utter idiocy of the argument that as long as the watchers are watched, the widespread watching can be an acceptable thing in the name of security.

I mean seriously, reading slashdot for the last 10 years. The watchers are thoroughly watched. We may only know 10% of what they've done, but we can easily guess the rest (notice the utter, utter lack of public debate and discussion over the ability and legality of widespread use of cell/mobilephones as always on eavesdropping devices? The silence and lack of discussion about that makes me _positive_ it is being done on a widespread scale.) But even if we know all there is to know, and the watchers have been 100% exposed, what we've seen is enough by the standards we were brought up to believe in vis a vis the 4th ammendment, the geneva conventions, etc. Watching the watchers invade our privacy, and encourage extremism instead of spending their intellect ability and time contributing positively to the social fabric... Makes me want to blow myself up in one of the watchers buildings.

$0.02. The watchers are not asleep, just utterly innefectual. Quote of the day from aclu.org's factsheet on extraordinary rendition - "In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." "

Them again?

[tchdab1]

Oh my God - who was president during 2001 - 2008? Oh, that guy, the guy that oversaw illegal wiretaps and domestic spying and lying to the nation about reasons for going to war and politicized the justice department and the US Attorneys and the civil rights commission and even the interior department and self-justified torture on captives and outed one of our own agents for political revenge and who refused to consider the need to address climate change and that lowered taxes on the wealthy even more and who had the talent to sound like a complete and unforgivable idiot within 5 seconds of opening his mouth at any time - that guy?

Re:Them again?

[witherstaff]

Shame the new guy decided to "look to the future, not the past" and didn't want to even have a commission to look at any wrongdoings. If you are politically connected you can get away with almost anything, both of the main parties are just as bad. Murder (Kennedy and the dead hooker), shooting a guy in the face and not reporting it for a day (Cheney), and all the other things that are so obviously wrong that late night talk shows use them as punchlines.

I'd like to see actual punishment for crimes, and not just the top dogs. Anyone who didn't do their job while working for the gov should at least be named so those idiots don't keep screwing up. Whoever was in charge overseeing Madoff at the SEC should be canned and publicly named, same with inspectors for the BP oil spill, etc. Instead we, at best, get some long winded hearing, people quietly quit, and it's back to the same payola.

Re:Them again?

[unitron]

To which Kennedy do you refer?

Re:Them again?

[witherstaff]

Sen Edward Kennedy Although it looks like I misremembered and was way off on her profession, she had been a secretary and aide to his brother. Crash your car and someone drowns, leave the scene, and you get a commuted sentence? Now that takes some pull!

Re:Them again?

[Legion303]

"publicly named" (etc.)

I was thinking something along those same lines just the other day. Why do we run mug shots of people accused of soliciting hookers, but not those of CEOs whose illegal actions ruin the lives of thousands?

Re:Them again?

[unitron]

Although it looks like I misremembered and was way off on her profession...

...not to mention confusing the accidental causing of someone's death with murder.

I do agree that if it had been you or I driving that Olds off the bridge or accidentally shooting someone whilst hunting while under the influence our lack of political connections would mean we wouldn't get out of it as easily. Nor would the national press give a damn.

Wrong argument

[snsh]

I cringe whenever I see an argument by the ACLU, EFF, etc that something has "compromised the civil liberties of American citizens", because they're making the wrong argument by casting it the opposite way it should be cast.

When you make a claim like that, the response is always going to be "was any harm done?" and the answer to that is usually "no, no harm was actually done" and then the response to that becomes "stop being a sissy, no harm no foul. unless you're up to something illegal, you've got nothing to worry about."

What the EFF should be claiming is that "government employees abuse the limits of their power". You have to focus the argument on the action, not the reaction. The way the Constitution is written, it doesn't guarantee the civil liberties of Americans. Instead, it limits the scope of authority of the federal government.

Re:Wrong argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Er.. wrong.

The U.S. Constitution defines quite specifically 4 things:

1) Liberties granted to US citizens

2) Formation of a governmental structure

3) Powers granted to said structure

4) Limitations of powers on said structure

If you are unsure of what the liberties are, I can quote a couple for you. Limiting the powers of the government IS the essential building block of granting civil liberties.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Re:Wrong argument

[mosb1000]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Wrong argument

[scorilo]

What the EFF should be claiming is that "government employees abuse the limits of their power".

--sarcasm-- Yes, that _would_ rally the people. --/sarcasm--

Re:Wrong argument

[m50d]

1) Liberties granted to US citizens

They're not liberties granted - who would grant them? They're rights which are mentioned to ensure the government may not infringe upon them, but they would exist even without that.

Re:Wrong argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to teach us all a Constitutional lesson, at least get it straight. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. It recognizes and protects them. Our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away (although they they can be abused). They aren't some sort of gift from the government. They are innately ours as humans.

It may seem like an academic point, but it's actually a very important distinction.

Re:Wrong argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberties granted to U. S. citizens wasn't in the Constitution as adopted. The examples you listed are part of the Bill of Rights, adopted after ratification.

The rest of your comment is spot on however, I do agree with the original commenter. "The government has abused its power" is a better headline.

Re:just another event predicted by McNealy's Law

[JesusFreke]

You mean like this? http://improveverywhere.com/missions/the-no-pants-subway-ride/

Sounds like fun!

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes if only they had adopted Obama's Comfey Chair policy sooner. I can see in your world when good guys do bide the law they get no mention.
So I'll name a few
Hawaii Five o
DragNet
Blue Collar
Cops
Bait Car
Various prison lockup shows.
To Catch a predator
La Femme Nikita (everyone who got it was evil)
American Greed
Polish Greed
Swiss Cheese
Various CSI NCIC shows
Hill Street Blues
Criminal Justice
Bones
Monk
The x Files
Southland

So in 24 how many nukes would you have let go off? all of them? some of them? How do you draw a line where Jack should let millions die?
Give him another donut Jack hel start talking real soon now. We need TV' show like 24 to remind us to be diligent to the likes of thoes who would let Evil reign un opposed.

These shows explore classic themes of good vs evil and I for one do not welcome our evil bastard overlords.

Now I ask if it was Zombies and not Cops would you make it through the first scene of any of these movies?
Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Extinction, Degeneration and Afterlife

If you can't handle the Cop or Zombie drama, stay out of the TV room.

PS do you feel sympathetic for the Ghosts in TV shows like Ghost Hunters?

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[noidentity]

Come on, the legal system just gums up the works, gets in the way and allows guilty people to walk free. Kind of like scientific method; it just slows down progress. Before that, people knew by feeling what was true and look at all the things that flourished, like astrology, palm reading, fortune telling, alchemy, homeopathy, etc. and were developed before the stagnation of science.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Along with shows like COPS, DEA, the various SWAT shows, etc. get the population used to the idea of a police state by only showing the "good" things they do so we believe they are only here to help us.

It's all propaganda.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[macraig]

You don't provide very effective counter-examples, since more than one of those shows have also featured plots involving breaking the law to allegedly serve the law. Did your very first example, Hawaii Five-O, mean to refer to the current re-made series or the original? My memory of the original isn't that good, but recent episodes of the current series featured plots that were anything but cops coloring inside the lines.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[macraig]

That tongue-in-cheek thing looks painful. Can it get stuck that way, like crossing your eyes?

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[macraig]

But the really scary aspect is that it's all unintentional non-conspiratorial free-advertising-type propaganda....

Slashdotters are great

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't seem to mind 9/11, since they don't want any investigation of terrorists.

Re:Slashdotters are great

[gstrickler]

Investigation != illegal abuse of power.

Re:Slashdotters are great

[Anonymous Coward]

Straw man arguments are lies.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[shutdown -p now]

I can see in your world when good guys do bide the law they get no mention.

I don't get a pat on the head every time I don't run the red light, either. Why should it be any different for FBI?

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Anonymous Coward]

For five - o I was thinking the 1968 original. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062568/plotsummary
Hadn't seen or heard about a remake/reboot until you mentioned it.

Actually you could rate that entire list from best to worst, clearly drama writing requires drawing but as in the case of Blue Collar for example the FBI is refressingly honest and roots out evil in its own ranks when they find it quite effectively.

But if it were a game we would say its only a game, enjoy it or walk away.
The same applies to drama, if you can't stand that Jack has a unique ethical perspective then you probably should tune away and spend your time elsewhere.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Burz]

Agreed, but... Superhero stories have done much the same thing too. The 'lesser' people are expected to simply stand aside for the 'ubermenschen' that have identified themselves with the national interest (e.g. "the American way"). The superheroes' methods and goals are rarely if ever scrutinized or reigned-in.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see in your world when good guys do bide the law they get no mention.

I don't get a pat on the head every time I don't run the red light, either. Why should it be any different for FBI?

Sorry , thought you were siding with the person blaming TV shows, I see now your sharing the blaming of FBI with the TV show blame thread was just inadvertent.

I thought you had joined the witch hunt on TV cop show industry thread.

How many jellybeans are in that jar, EFF?

[MicroBiscuit]

All the numbers are guesses and estimates by their own admission, but you don't get that part until the very last endnote. If the EFF is going to try to scare me it should do it with more accuracy, otherwise it just seems petty.

Re:How many jellybeans are in that jar, EFF?

[moortak]

Even if you only count the numbers that they extrapolate from, it is way too many.

Freedom

[MrKaos]

Your freedom is an illusion.

There I said it, again.

Re:Freedom

[toetagger]

You are free to think what we want you to think - that should be enough freedom for anyone!

Re:Freedom

[fishthegeek]

No it isn't. It's alive and well thank you. Take a tour of a few Asian countries, or better yet the Mid East. All governments will have problems, and if you foolishly believe in (insert Utopian ideal here) then you are bound for a lifetime of disappointment.

Re:Freedom

[dkleinsc]

You're free to choose where your sex monitoring chip is installed. And if you don't pay your taxes, you're free to spend the weekend with the pain monster.

- Richard M Nixon's head

Re:Freedom

[Goboxer]

The fact you can say this without getting shot should be proof that you have some freedom.

And...

[MacGyver2210]

You're surprised exactly...why? The government is CORRUPT. It has been since before I was born, and it will be long after I die. If it's not in its current form, it will be in some other way invading our lives in ways we disagree with.

My question now is: So now that the EFF found this out, what exactly do they plan to do about it? Is this one of those "Well we found out about it, but fixing it is someone else's gig!" organizations?

I only ask because those help nobody, and I wish that everyone involved with them would choke on their misplaced self-satisfaction and do us the courtesy of dying.

Re:And...

[k8to]

Right, the EFF helps nobody, even if they don't see all problems to their eventual conclusion and full resolution.

Absolutist much?

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

End corruption or at least let me participate in it !!

It all makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't look too closely, "civil liberties" looks just like "evil liberties".

What do you call it.....

[DanielRavenNest]

When an individual breaks the law 3 times?......Habitual Offender or 3 time loser
When a small groups breaks the law 100 times?..... Gang or organized crime
When a large group breaks the law 40,000 times?.....A government agency

Re:What do you call it.....

[Uberbah]

When a large group breaks the law 40,000 times?.....A government agency

Or a bank.
Or an oil company.
Or a coal mining company.
Or a defense contractor.

But who's counting?

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Belial6]

I could never watch shows like COPS. Almost every time I tried, I would see the police either committing crimes, or at the very least behaving incredibly unethically.

And that's just the FBI!

[mosb1000]

Wait till you hear about the CIA. Anyone who does not firmly believe the government is evil at this point is hopeless. And no, voting for change is not the solution, it is the problem.

Re:And that's just the FBI!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who does not firmly believe the government is evil at this point is hopeless.

So I'm "hopeless" if I believe that the government is not a monolithic single-minded entity with a clearly-defined D&D-style "alignment", but rather an organization consisting of hundreds of smaller groups employing tens of thousands of people, all of whom are individuals with wildly varying beliefs, opinions, and willingness/ability to act on those beliefs in the course of their work?

Well, then, reality must be "hopeless" as well.

Re:And that's just the FBI!

[mosb1000]

You are hopeless if you believe meaningless words rationalizing the actions of an organization that clearly does evil indiscriminately all across the face of the earth will somehow save you from it.

Re:And that's just the FBI!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that, nor was that implied by anything I said. You invented that strawman position out of thin air and assigned it to me. You did that willingly and knowingly, and you did it because you knew you were not competent to refute anything that I actually said.

Re:And that's just the FBI!

[mosb1000]

I don't believe that

Then perhaps you are not hopeless.

You invented that strawman position out of thin air and assigned it to me.

It sounds to me like you assigned it to yourself so you could build your own strawman.

you did it because you knew you were not competent to refute anything that I actually said.

This coming from one who is clearly an expert at building such arguments. In what way does

the government is not a monolithic single-minded entity with a clearly-defined D&D-style "alignment"

really refute

Anyone who does not firmly believe the government is evil at this point is hopeless.

Using a specific definition of the word evil (saying that it somehow can not apply to an organization), will not save you from that organization. In the end of the day, your definition of evil has no practical application. Your refutation of my point is of no practical value either, since you've only refuted it in your own mind. It's just more meaningless words taking up space on a server somewhere. Much the same as this post, since it will likely fall on deaf ears.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[macraig]

Funny thing, that... I did tune away and spend my time elsewhere. The ethical relativitism on that show, more than any other I can recall, made me almost physically sick. Calling it a 'unique ethical perspective' is quite an understatement.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[macraig]

That, too. I just haven't been much of a comics reader, so it didn't immediately come to mind. There are many other examples of how we reinforce it culturally.

GREAT video interview with Julian Assange

[Anonymous Coward]

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, we need you.

*awesome* title :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos to the EFF for uncovering intelligence in the FBI! I hope that action is taken and that this danger is curbed.
FBI intelligence -- how dare they??

Re:Self prosecution? Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

You are asking the government to prosecute itself. Without a person at the top with a highly developed sense of morality it isn't likely to happen within the same branch of government. Even with such a person at the top, political reality may make it impossible. That's why we have separation of powers. It will ONLY happen if a different branch of government is the one who decides to press the issue. Expecting the executive branch to spank itself is simply wishful thinking most of the time. If congress or the judiciary can be prodded into action, then something might happen. Otherwise, forget it.

For what it's worth I don't expect much out of Congress either. Very easy to score "soft on crime" political points on someone who criticizes the FBI even if the FBI deserves it.

Besides, legislative and judiciary branches are toothless, executive branch can safely ignore them, because real power (instruments of violence) is in safely in hands of executive branch. In other words, separation of powers is just a separation between power and imaginary power.

If you want to solve this problem, you either have to separate REAL powers - split the forces of executive branch and pit them against one another, or you have to give other "powers" some real muscle - allow and demand of them to recruit and station their own armed men with authority to suppress, persecute and detain executive branch's men, under certain circumstances.

Release impact strategy

[Tenebrarum]

it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years? there by assuring it will be completely missed by Mondays new cycle?!?! It's just plain incompetent.

But, but but--that would be political, biased and reek of an agenda.

Sincerely,
OpenLeaks

mafia takedown

[Dr. Tom]

So, now we know how they found those 100 mob members. Oh, maybe it was an informant. Maybe the informant was the phone company.

Think of the children!

[McTickles]

yeah, you wouldn't them RAPED, or TAKEN or even TERRORIZED would you?

That's why we need guns

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

to prevent USA to become another China or North Korea.

So what

[ThatsNotPudding]

Obama will just give them a free pass, as he did for AT&T's warrantless wiretapping while in the Senate. While Obama is part Kenyan, by his actions and inactions, he appears to have a bit of Penobscott-Bush heritage as well.

In related news

[ThatsNotPudding]

Republican Representative Darrel Issa wants the name of everyone who has filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

Exhuming McCarthy, indeed.

subject

[Legion303]

SHOCKED! SHOCKED I AM AT--no, wait. I'm not shocked in the slightest.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[cbiltcliffe]

Give him another donut Jack hel start talking real soon now. We need TV' show like 24 to remind us to be diligent to the likes of thoes who would let Evil reign un opposed.

These shows explore classic themes of good vs evil and I for one do not welcome our evil bastard overlords.

That's exactly the point. The evil FBI that's breaking the law left, right, and center is your current evil bastard overlord.

As soon as you start along the path of "I can do this illegal activity because it's to stop this evil person over here from doing some illegal activity," you start justifying your own (or people you support) evils, and become the very thing you're trying to stop.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[dkleinsc]

Law & Order should not be lumped in with 24 in that regard: When the cops or DAs broke their ethical rules, they got caught fairly regularly, and when they got caught there were sometimes serious consequences for doing so. And rarely if ever were you sympathetic to their breaking the rules. The original series at least was also smart enough to portray the cops, DAs, and sometimes judges as flat wrong a lot of the time, but constructing remarkably strong cases against the wrong defendant.

Re:I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & O

[Anonymous Coward]

At least 24 also planted the seed of a black president being possible. :)

Selective Outrage

[sycodon]

"investigations from 2001 — 2008"

Because it doesn't matter if Obama or Clinton did it.

Re:Selective Outrage

[LearnToSpell]

Yeah, people tend to forget that Clinton signed the PATRIOT Act. Good call. I'm newly outraged!

Re:250,000

[TaoPhoenix]

Nice reply, and I'll save that as info for part 4 of my sig theme. To answer the posts below, let's assume it's planned smartly with the help of a lawyer, so that no low-level technicalities can trash all that org. work. Nice also to say that ammo (including DDOS?) isn't needed, because it gives them cheap escape hatches.

I think 250,000 flawlessly behaved demonstrators would be formidable fun to watch.

Re:Crisis

[TaoPhoenix]

Wouldn't that kind of showdown produce the worst dystopian martial law we've ever seen? You and the other poster who mentioned Egypt make great points, and I'll plead I Am Not A Foreign Affairs Guy. But for ten years now US Gov has been darn near picking a fight. So not even a month would be enough. Elsewhere, I said 60's protests don't work, because those are within the normal context. Your post actually comes thunderingly close to a fulfillment of 2012 doomsday if we really totally overthrew US Gov - or tried and missed.

Something Doesn't Add Up

[arcadeveteran70]

I don't understand how the FBI can keep tabs on millions of American citizens, to spot suspicious behavior (we're told), and yet all the big corruption stories on Wall Street completely surprise them. What does this tell us about who they're watching, and why? They're obviously not interested in catching criminals.

Hate to say I told you so.

[jafac]

. . . no wait. I love saying that. :)

Re:Crisis

[s73v3r]

Who says we're looking for the total overthrow of the US Government? We're asking for a change in our representation and leadership. And we've been peaceably doing that for over 200 years.

Stop counting ...

[AkkarAnadyr]

... when banks are involved.

They can help run drugs with impunity.

Re:Self prosecution? Not likely

[durdur]

You are asking the government to prosecute itself. Without a person at the top with a highly developed sense of morality it isn't likely to happen within the same branch of government. Even with such a person at the top, political reality may make it impossible.

We did it once. We got a sitting President to resign (in place of impeachment) for, among other things, spying on and using various federal agencies (including the FBI) to attack his political enemies.

So it's not impossible. But I do wonder where the outrage is this time. We have a whole bunch of people stirred up over the government being too big and spending too much money. But they and their representatives aren't moving to enforce the laws we have against illegal wiretapping, etc., nor are they pushing to repeal things like the Patriot Act, which gives the government hugely expanded surveillance powers. Government overreaching in the area of civil liberties doesn't seem to be an issue - it should be IMO.

Gasp!

[rx7chick]

I had no idea!!!

The deck is stacked against us

[Anonymous Coward]

The government now has laws that can lead to the arrest of honest people trying to be heard such as treason, and as far as freedom of speech we have free speech zones. Also be careful who you express your thoughts of government because the person you are talking to might want to be a hero and rat you out to the feds. I know I have trouble keeping my mouth shut when I hear a heard of sheeples talking about being on camera virtually any time you are outside you home that if you haven't broken a law you don't have anything to worry about. Trouble is this is for this week but what about next week. I think we be going the same way as the Romans did.

Bush Paranoia allowed or encouraged FBI wrongdoing

[lsatenstein]

Subject line says it all. Bush wants to live in fear, and show he was protecting Americans. If you want to protect Americans, stop excesses and stop creating oligopolies that send manufacturing and engineering jobs offshore. We need small business and innovation to return, and in so doing, the American oligopolic greed to deal with despots, just to ensure oil deliveries for American lifestyles will diminish and we will be known better as humanitarians, as is the majority of the wonderful population. But the view outside of the USA, sadly, is that the only God that Americans have is the dollar.