Slashdot Mirror
US Senators Concerned With Surveillance Bill "Loophole"
zer0point writes "The law lets U.S. agencies monitor the communications of foreigners outside the U.S. But two senators are questioning whether a loophole allows the storage and search of messages from Americans that are picked up inadvertently while foreigners are being monitored. The intelligence community has repeatedly said it takes steps to minimize the data collected on Americans. Among the senators’ concerns: that the administration hasn’t been able to estimate how many people in the U.S. have had their information reviewed under the program."
I suspect the truth is "hasn't been willing to".
People have been willing to ignore these sorts of things since they can at least pretend it's probably doesn't involve their own information. If the truth came out, and the government admitted it was electronically sifting through virtually all internal US communications... I suspect people would start to get riled up over it.
#DeleteChrome
When I clicked on the article I was wholly unsurprised to find Ron Wyden was one of the senators. Every time there's something in the news about a bit of sanity coming from a senator, it seems to have Ron Wyden's name. It's encouraging that there's a senator like that out there, but it's discouraging that it's only 1% of them. I wish we could get one or two of those for my state.
with the fact that they are not concerned with the rights of people outside the Holy Land of the United States of America. Typical.
But two senators are questioning whether a loophole allows the storage and search of messages from Americans that are picked up inadvertently while foreigners are being monitored. The intelligence community has repeatedly said it takes steps to minimize the data collected on Americans.
What does that 2nd sentence even mean and why was it included? Either they are allowed, which case no need to minimize the data on Americans or they are not allowed to. "Taking steps to minimize" means nothing quantifiable (up to 100% reduced!).
Even assuming I trust everyone here, that is still a totally meaningless and irrelevant statement included in the article.
What this article leaves out and the reader should know, is that it is illegal for the federal government to monitor domestic communications without a warrant. There is no such protection afforded non-citizens outside of the USA. At issue is when the CIA (or other foreign intelligence gathering organization of the Federal Government) is monitoring a foreign national outside of the USA who may be talking to someone inside the states. The "loophole" they are talking about basically is that as long as the collection target is not a domestic US citizen, any information gathered is legal to keep, even if it involves a domestic party. It must also be understood that such evidence would NOT be admissible in court for a criminal trial having not been obtained though a warrant. I wonder if it could legally be used as probable cause to obtain the warrant though.
I personally don't see the huge issue with this, unless we are seeing a rash of prosecutions based on such evidence. I have heard of no such cases. Further, unless the Fed is really not trying to filter the data at all, it is unlikely that they have much data that they have to purge. After all, this IS an investigative effort that targets non-US-citizens so it makes sense their filtering is pretty good, or this effort would be useless.
I'll guess that the guys with the tinfoil hats who are looking for the black helicopters won't like this, but I'd be much more worried about Google or Facebook collection efforts than this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the committee, said she believes that existing provisions in the law are adequate to prevent Americansâ(TM) communications from being mishandled. ... But Sen. Feinstein said she agrees that the committee should know just how many Americans are having their communications monitored.
I am sure Senator Feinstein will see things differently if she was spied upon. And, even more interestingly, "Americans' communication ... being mishandled" really depends on her definition "mishandled". Maybe she believes that not spell-checking the permanent records is "mishandling", but spying itself is fine?
As always, it is great to see that the only meaningful debate (which may or may not result in any changes) is whether the senators should be kept in the loop. Nothing about protecting Americans from being monitored 24-7.
Spying on citizens not under your own authority illegal?
The US government seams to freak out when foreign citizens spy on it yet it seams to be ok when it does it to them.
Don't make international calls.... Specifically, don't call somebody in the list of countries where the bad guys frequent....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Nothing to see here Senator Likes-to-be-spanked-by-nuns-while-wearing-diapers and Senator Visits-livegoatporn.com-every-fifteen-minutes. No personally-identifying information is being collected and certainly wouldn't get out unless completely by accident."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I hate to do it, but someone has to.
How many people have been killed by international terrorists on US soil in all of history?
How much have we spend on counter-terrorism efforts in the past 10 years?
Do some math... and we're spending billions per civilian life to stop terrorist attacks.
Lets just stop for a while and see what happens.
Now you're going to jump up and yell "That's cold! It's horrible! How could you?!?!"
Well, yea... fine, I'll accept that. But what if we instead spent all those billions on cancer research?
Not only would we save far more lives, over a much longer term, but dieing from cancer is plain and simple a worse way to die that having your plane blown up or crashed.
Counter terrorism is an excuse to maintain our cold-war levels of military readiness that simply are not needed any longer. We need to stop, and think before we spend and bomb.
Secret court decides that its reason to exist is legal..... news at 11:00
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If any information is collected by real time surveillance of any sort without a judicial ruling pertaining to a particular person for particular stuff, AND NO ADVERSARY WAS AVAILABLE TO OBJECT, then it can never be used in evidence for any domestic civil, criminal, administrative case or any other legal proceeding with consequences to the subject at all. Zero tolerance. Cite precedent that the government itself uses zero tolerance in many legal actions.
Submitted for approval. GFL.
JJ
Like, uh.. the United Kingdom (7/7) or Spain, or, pretty much any large country in Western Europe.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If you don't know the government isn't monitoring you, you must assume they are?
Oh no, god forbid "Americans" are subject to the same treatment as that which they mete out. The self perceived exceptionalism of the US is so jarring, created equal indeed.
It may be difficult for you to accept this, but many Americans are against a lot of what our government does in the name of our safety and interests. I know that foreign stereotypes of Americans are well-ingrained and constantly reinforced by the foreign media, but you could exercise your critical thinking organ a bit here.
Its the ONLY time congress 'cares' about our rights and wave their 'look at me flag'. As soon as the elections are over, it will be back to business as usual.
They don't care, they never have, never will.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"that the administration hasnâ(TM)t been able to estimate how many people in the U.S. have had their information reviewed under the program." So unless I'm mistaken I pretty sure communications going through other countries don't have some kind of "this is a us comms" tag. Ya, you MIGHT be able to use an IP but with the nature of the Internet and routing it's pretty easy to get that mucked up. So that said, how do you count the number of communications collected on US persons if your not sure where they came from? That said, even if you are filtering on IP then all anyone would need to do is connect to a US based proxy and WOOOO it's bannananananana time. I have no idea what that means.
You are both wise and brave, and your choice of responding as AC proves this.
It's not OK to spy on Americans, but not a problem to spy on foreigners?
Sigh..
Insert
The vote in May for ending the 'Forever War' warrantless wiretapping of US citizens was 2 to 13. Just two of fifteen US Senators believe the Rule of Law is a concept still worth defending.
If it wasn't clear already, this was confirmation the conversion of the US into police state continues unabated. A point the leadership of both parties are in agreement.
Domestic monitoring *requires* a warrant so a judge must be shown probable cause or any evidence collected would not be allowed in court. So, in the case you are bringing up, if they monitor a domestic to domestic phone call without a warrant they cannot use any evidence collected to prosecute. Given this, they would be *stupid* to not get the warrants, because they'd walk Scott free otherwise.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Wyden's been hinting for a while that their secret interpretation of this "spy on foreigners" stuff is to spy on all Americans as well. They're probably claiming that, since internet or phone can be routed internationally since it's all data packets, that means all communication is international and they can spy on it. Shocking, I know.
Chill.
The government of ANY country can legally spy on foreign nationals if they choose to do so.
Whether any particular government can spy on its own citizens (with or without a warrant) is that government's (and those citizens') business.
So, we'll worry about our government spying on us, and you can worry about your government spying on you....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I cope by voting third party *most of the time*. And I'm damn glad I actually read your question.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.