Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Executive Order That Led To Mass Spying, As Told By NSA Alumni

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-see-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this Ars piece about the executive order that is the legal basis for the U.S. government's mass spying on citizens. One thing sits at the heart of what many consider a surveillance state within the US today. The problem does not begin with political systems that discourage transparency or technologies that can intercept everyday communications without notice. Like everything else in Washington, there's a legal basis for what many believe is extreme government overreach—in this case, it's Executive Order 12333, issued in 1981. “12333 is used to target foreigners abroad, and collection happens outside the US," whistleblower John Tye, a former State Department official, told Ars recently. "My complaint is not that they’re using it to target Americans, my complaint is that the volume of incidental collection on US persons is unconstitutional.” The document, known in government circles as "twelve triple three," gives incredible leeway to intelligence agencies sweeping up vast quantities of Americans' data. That data ranges from e-mail content to Facebook messages, from Skype chats to practically anything that passes over the Internet on an incidental basis. In other words, EO 12333 protects the tangential collection of Americans' data even when Americans aren't specifically targeted—otherwise it would be forbidden under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

7 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Haply so, but exec orders and agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    President and agencies still swear to uphold the Constitution and have no business violating it, executive orders or not.
    Any orders ought to be followed to the extent the Constitution allows, not beyond, and those going beyond deserve
    to be punished. That should include Presidents, though such sanctions are pretty broken.

  2. Different era by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That data ranges from e-mail content to Facebook messages, from Skype chats to practically anything that passes over the Internet on an incidental basis.

    None of those things existed, when the order was signed, though. And if none of the subsequent Presidents — including the current "tech-savvy" wonder — have abolished it since then (when the explosive use of computers made it truly dangerous), then is Reagan really to blame?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Different era by Feces's+Edge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He also ramped up the war on drugs, something that so many freedom-hating scumbags in our government have done. So he wasn't a good president, and he definitely didn't want "small government."

      But what does that have to do with him being to blame for this specific issue?

  3. Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly by turp182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is crazy. It seems Executive Orders are non-legislation afforded the impact of law.

    Executive Orders should expire after a couple of years, or when a Presidential inauguration occurs, whichever comes first. Continuation should require Congress to pass it as ACTUAL law. And changes outside of that period MUST be ACTUAL LAW!!!!!

    WTF!?!?!?!?

    Sorry for the caps, I RTFA and it pissed me off.

    I would suggest Executive Orders be done away with completely, they are an "I am the King" method of ruling. Not leading, ruling, controlling.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the president had to go through congress to do everything, nothing would get done.

      I'd rather nothing get done than allow one man to be able to use 'I am king' orders.

    2. Re:Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A typical executive order simply designates procedures and requirements to be followed by people working for the Executive branch of the government.

      Which is EXACTLY what this executive order does. It is implementing at the Executive Branch the legislation to which it is based, namely the National Security Act of 1947 as amended. It even says so at the start of the order:

      by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, (Act) and as President of the United States of America, in order to provide for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights, it is hereby ordered as follows:

      http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/...

      Also, nothing in this executive order "led to" the warrantless wiretapping as alleged in the story. In fact, there are several places in the order that state that if US citizens are involved, it MUST go through the FBI / Attorney General. Read it. You will see what I mean.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  4. Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The simple fact is that *most* executive orders are perfectly valid, and discontinuing them would serve no purpose.

    A typical executive order simply designates procedures and requirements to be followed by people working for the Executive branch of the government. (Such as requiring that they not enter contracts with companies discriminating against employees for various reasons.)

    This, however, is not a typical executive order. It is, quite simply, unconstitutional, and an explicit violation of laws written and passed by Congress. This is something that Congress, the States, and the People, *should* be getting upset about. Unfortunately, it won't happen, because roughly 50% of the country doesn't want to acknowledge anything that will make Republicans look bad, and roughly another half doesn't want to acknowledge anything that makes Democrats look bad. That leaves a few rational stragglers stuck in the middle, saying "WTF is up with you boneheaded ****wads?!!"