The NSA: Never Not Watching

Trailrunner7 writes "For many observers of the privacy and surveillance landscape, the revelation by The Guardian that the FBI received a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to require Verizon to turn over to the National Security Agency piles of call metadata on all calls on its network probably felt like someone telling them that water is wet. There have been any number of signals in the last few years that this kind of surveillance and data collection was going on, little indications that the United States government was not just spying on its own citizens, but doing so on a scale that would dwarf anything that all but the most paranoid would imagine." And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."

Comments

Constitution

[fyngyrz]

It's what authorizes legitimate government. Anyone think this is authorized? 4th amendment? Anyone?

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.

Re:Constitution

[Trepidity]

If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did), there's no 4th-amendment violation, at least under current Supreme Court interpretations, because the records are considered to be owned by Verizon (not you), so their consent is sufficient. They're the ones that have a 4th-amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure of their records. So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.

Re:Constitution

[khasim]

My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?

Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

Re:Constitution

[gstoddart]

If Verizon agreed to hand over the records

Verizon got informed that they were required to comply, I don't think there was much room for them to disagree.

When someone comes to you with a National Security Letter (or whatever they're called), you don't even have the legal right to tell someone about it without facing (probably secret) charges.

But, I gotta say, you make it sound even more depressing -- we're not spying on you, we're asking them to provide us with information about you.

Re:Constitution

[CanHasDIY]

NSA Warrant Submission:

Place to be searched: Verizon Databases
Things to be seized: Everything

--------------------

Warrant issued.

Your Friend,
Judge Rubberstamp

Re:Constitution

[Vintermann]

They didn't agree, they were forced. They were even advised that seeking a lawyer's advice before complying would be a crime.

You got to wonder, if they had quietly refused, what would have happened to them? After all, trying them in public could compromise the secrecy of this order. Even punishing them would be tricky, you couldn't tell anyone why you were doing it. What would the family get to hear? "My son the Verizon employee is in prison for disobeying unspecified secret orders"? or simply "One day, my son disappeared at work and hasn't been seen since" ?

Is that the future in the US? It is unless they change course on these insane secrecy demands, because it's simply not possible to implement without such measures as soon as anyone stands up to it.

Re:Constitution

[turp182]

And the telecommunications companies have immunity from prosecution for such requests being fulfilled (it was even retroactive at the time to squash active lawsuits).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-telecoms-win-immunity

Re:Constitution

[bill_mcgonigle]

Because telling Bin Laden

Everybody of significance involved in planning 9/11 is dead, at least those listed by the non-redacted portion of the 9/11 Commission Report.

What's going on now is not that. Maybe we should be asking what it is, exactly?

According to some, it's a hunt for every person in the world who may not in the future submit to the will of the US Government. War without End, in other words.

Re:Constitution

[mc6809e]

"Would you please provide X" is not an "ask" when it is followed by a directly associated "or you'll go to jail."

or you'll get audited by the IRS

or you'll have OSHA drop by

or you'll have the NLRB prevent you from opening an office in another state...

The regulatory power of the executive is enough of a threat.

Re:Constitution

[myth24601]

"They were even advised that seeking a lawyer's advice before complying would be a crime."

I would love to see how that would play out in court.

Re:Constitution

[Dave Emami]

let's quote Sen. Lindsey Graham

"This was created by the Congress, and if we've made mistakes and we've gotten outside the lane then we're going to get inside the lane. But the consequence of taking these tools away from the American people through their government would be catastrophic."

Do I even need to comment?

Part of the problem is that there is no penalty to legislators and executives for violating the Constitution. This is not a mere "mistake" as the Senator portrays it. He's breaking his oath of office and the law (the Constitution being the highest US law and a set of meta-laws). By way of comparison, let's assume that I stole someone's car, and then get caught. I am not just forced to give them their car back and call it even (or "get inside the lane" as Senator Graham puts it). The legal system punishes me for the act of stealing the car in the first place. The same sort of thing should happen when a law is ruled unconstitutional -- the Representatives and Senators who voted for it, and the President who signed it, should suffer a significant punishment. When the Communications Decency Act got overturned, it should have resulted in President Clinton, Senator Exon, and 504 other politicians spending ten years in Leavenworth breaking rocks. None of this "we'll pass it and then let the Supreme Court decide if it's constitutional" crap.

Granted, you'd have to change how Supreme Court justices are appointed, otherwise presidents and Congress would have an incentive to appoint ones who would let them get away with such things.

seems all the politicos are in favor

[Trepidity]

And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."

Not only is the Executive branch in favor, but there's strong bipartisan support in the Legislative branch: immediately after this leak, both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Dianne Feinstein for the Democrats, Saxby Chambliss for the Republicans) held a press conference to defend the necessity of this kind of dragnet surveillance, and to claim that it's not a big deal since it's "just" metadata.

Re:seems all the politicos are in favor

[khasim]

From that article:

This renewal is carried out by the FISA Court under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore, it is lawful.

Lawful is not the same as Constitutional. I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers would NOT have supported this.

As you know, this is just metadata.

If it is "just" anything then why are you so concerned about collecting it?

The information goes into a database, ...

That's even worse. They're COMPILING information about citizens without even having a "reasonable suspicion" about those citizens.

... the metadata, but cannot be accessed without whatâ(TM)s called, and I quote, "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the records are relevant and related to terrorist activity.

Who cares? If there is "reasonable, articulable suspicion" THEN you go after the records. With a WARRANT. And the warrant IDENTIFIES those SPECIFIC people you have a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of.

As you know, and Iâ(TM)ve pointed out many times, there have been approximately 100 plots and also arrests made since 2009 by the FBI.

Go on ...

I do not know to what extent metadata was used or if it was used, but I do know this: ...

If YOU do not know then who DOES know?

And if YOU do not know then YOU should not be trying to IMPLY that there is any link between collecting this information and cracking any plots.

I do not know to what extent metadata was used or if it was used, but I do know this: That terrorists will come after us if they can and the only thing we have to deter this is good intelligence.

More of our people die when their own family kills them than die from "terrorists" in the US.

If "the only thing" that will protect us from these "terrorists" is collecting information on our own citizens then I am willing to take that risk.

Critical tools

[intermodal]

If our government believes throwing out the Constitution is what it takes to protect our nation from terrorist threats, I'm less scared of the terrorists than I am of the government.

Re:Critical tools

[SirGarlon]

You should be a lot more afraid of the government than of terrorists. Your probability of being affected by a terrorist attack is approximately zero (odds of being killed by terrorists are about one in 20 million for Americans). Your probability of being affected by your government is approximately one.

Critical Tool

[gewalker]

In this case, the "critical tools" are Obama, Eric Holder, or who-ever is behind this large-scale invasion of privacy. I know plenty of people (mostly liberals) complained when the warrant-less wiretaps happened under Bush. It appears that these are considerably larger in scope.

How NSA was able to do this

[Spy Handler]

they joined the Verizon Share Everything plan.

Obama

[codepunk]

"You've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," Obama said. "You should reject these voices. Because what these suggest is that somehow our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

FUD is dead - fred

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to ask that before anybody goes off on a pseudo-rage rant about this.... Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.

Not that this whole situation is trivial... It's just not really as bad as some FUD mongers are making it out to be.

Ok FUD is dead. It's been so overused that it has no meaning - meaning, FUD is used as an implicit ad hominem now. OK?

Also,

Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen

Like what?!?

We have seen over the last few years the SCOTUS back up the cops just about every time. Ask me when they didn't, and I'd be hard pressed to find an example. For cases of where they OKay'd what the cops did just requires hitting the Slashdot "older" articles button at the bottom there.

We need to get into out heads that we need - MUST- question authority EVERY time and hold their feet to the fire.

Ask them WHY are you doing what you are doing and JUSTIFY IT.

Blanket statements of "War on Drugs" or War on Terrorism" or "THink of the Children" CANNOT and MUST NOT be an excuse.

Speaking as someone who voted for Obama - I am PISSED!

And to head off the "YOu should have voted for Romney" guys - Fuck you! It would be more of the same times 911. I was HOPING that the BLACK dude would stick to the MAN but he IS the MAN.

Re:FUD is dead - fred

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick test to discover who is or is not "the man."

1) Can you vote for this person to participate in the government?

If yes, The Man.

If no, undefined.

Re:FUD is dead - fred

[kilfarsnar]

And to head off the "YOu should have voted for Romney" guys - Fuck you! It would be more of the same times 911. I was HOPING that the BLACK dude would stick to the MAN but he IS the MAN.

You should have voted for Cynthia McKinney, or Jill Stein, or John Huntsman. As you have observed, anyone on the Blue or Red team in an election is the Man, with few exceptions.

Re:I would have had a frsoty post

[hairyfeet]

"I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs, well i believe the puppet on the right has My interests at heart...hey wait a minute, there is one guy working both puppets!"..Bill Hicks.

Can we PLEASE just accept that the whole "left versus right" thing is nothing but kayfabe to give the sheep the illusion of choice? I mean why do you think Obama kept ALL the crap about Bush that the left hated? because its the same corporate masters behind the curtain pulling the strings, he was told to STFU and read the cue cards and play his part. Ventura said being a politician was no different than wrestling, you pretend to hate the guy while the camera rolls and when it stops you have lunch together. Why do you think Goldman Sachs has stayed in control of the fed no matter if there is a D or R in the white house? Why do you think the press drums up and pushes the hell out of "issues' like gay rights when most don't give a fat fuck about that either way? because these things the corps don't give a fat fuck about either, so no matter what the population chooses it won't affect them.

So can we PLEASE finally end the lie that voting is gonna do jack shit in a two party system? Obama kept every bit of the jack booted bullshit dubya started and then some, and no matter whom you "choose" (which is in and of itself a scam, look up "Jon Stewart Ron Paul" to see how many hoops the press went through just to make sure that Paul had no chance during the primary, or the behind the scenes video Alex Jones got of the RNC where the outcome of the voice vote shows up on the prompter BEFORE the vote was called) all you are gonna get is coke in a can versus coke in a bottle, only pre-approved corporate shills need apply.