Slashdot Mirror
Justice Officials Fear Nation's Biggest Wiretap Operation May Not Be Legal (usatoday.com)
schwit1 writes with news about a vast wiretapping program and questions about its legality. USA Today reports: "Federal drug agents have built a massive wiretapping operation in the Los Angeles suburbs, secretly intercepting tens of thousands of Americans' phone calls and text messages to monitor drug traffickers across the United States despite objections from Justice Department lawyers who fear the practice may not be legal. Nearly all of that surveillance was authorized by a single state court judge in Riverside County, who last year signed off on almost five times as many wiretaps as any other judge in the United States. The judge's orders allowed investigators — usually from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration — to intercept more than 2 million conversations involving 44,000 people, federal court records show."
Look how the narcotics trafficking and related crimes have plummeted in California. Oh wait that's because pot is legal now, nevermind
Illegal? When has that ever stopped the government?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
sooo, arrest everybody....easypeasy.
My tag line says it all.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Seriously, isn't it about time to rethink the war on drugs? It should be pretty damn obvious, to even a politician, that casual drug users are not an infinitesimally small minority of the population. How about plowing all of that money into education and actual rehabilitation. Besides, we always have the war on terror as an excuse to violate the Constitution when needed.
Drugs are illegal too! Yeah! You ever think of that, you damn dopers!?
I would be happy to discard potential indictments because the government is no longer willing to gather evidence in a constitutional manner.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
"If I am anywhere in the USA, and am talking on my cellphone, can the government hear me? And are they recording? And can they use it against me at any time?"
"Yes." -- Bill Binney, former NSA Tech Director. Worked for NSA 37 years
also:
"Bulk surveillance is not necessary to protect anybody. NSA tries to track everyone on the planet. google: the program Treasuremap. OS's are absolutely not safe!" -- Bill Binney, former NSA Tech Director. Worked for NSA 37 years
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...
When you're so far over the line that the DOJ says "hey, you might have gone a little too far," that's a pretty good sign you're well into "clearly illegal" territory.
Not, of course, that the DOJ would ever actually take up a case against a law enforcement office breaking the law. Heaven forfend.
...the rest of us fear it may be legal.
1) do you have a warrant, based upon a sworn declaration of probable cause, issued by a neutral magistrate, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized?
2) did you lie to a judge to obtain a warrant?
If the first answer is "yes", and the second answer is "no", then you're not a criminal. If your answers are different and you're doing it anyway, then FUCK YOU.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Because law enforcement personnel sometimes face consequences when they do something illegal?
If this judge works 52 weeks a year (no vacation), and a typical 40 hour work week (without breaks or lunch), and we assume that "conversations involving 44,000 people" requires that each call (warrant) requires at least 2 people (22,000 warrants max), then this judge would need to approve one of these more than once every six minutes!
There is no "fear" here. "Think", "know", "are certain that", yeah all those. If there were any "fear" here we would be on the right track.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Well, um, then this is actually not me, I am a hacker who has been exploiting this unrelated person's telephone, internet connection, and email accounts for a very long time, so no need to bother that person!
It should read
"Justice officials fear public will find out nation's biggest wiretap is illegal and action. Which is unlikely to happen or be effective if it does"
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
So, secret laws, then?
Of course you can be transparent -- about the process. Individual cases, yes, people understand that those details may need to be secret, but not the process. Otherwise people might think that there are secret laws in use here.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I will not own a phone after this contract ends.
My laptop is a 2nd gen i3 that is wearing out it too will be my last.
Car insurance spying on what you say to raise your rates what beer you buy sold to them so they can raise your rates if you drink good stuff you wont mind and go somewhere else.
I wont use grocery store cards any more either.
A bad admin get elected and they will come after us for something in all this stored data.
that's why they've made up parallel construction.
http://thefreethoughtproject.c...
It's way past time that we encrypt and obfuscate all communication.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
DURDY DUUURRR!
Who cares what is legal ?
Sorry man, I'm just in a groovy mood... dig?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
+1
You know, in today's post 9/11 world, I have to say that I agree. I mean, what the fuck? We're all cool with it,right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No, it's just illegal. Not legal under the fourth amendment (lack of probable cause) and not legal under the fourteenth (lack of due process). There are counterarguments, but if this comes up in trial it will go to SCOTUS and they will definitely rule that it is illegal.
Unless you elect a republican. (Next President gets to appoint a lot of justices; republican justices tend to be more anti-criminal and a little less about safeguarding individuals against overreaching by law enforcement). Then they will probably rule that it is illegal, but might not.
As others have pointed out already, it's impossible for the judge in question to have examined all the cases where wiretapping was approved. That dereliction of responsibility should be grounds for dismissal. Having a judge removed from the bench would set a good precedent and put any other black robed petty tyrants on notice that the constitution is not just an old piece of paper.
Why is Snark Required?
They need not be afraid. It IS illegal. It is incredibly unethical as well.
The question is not whether or not this is the case.
The question is whether they will ever punish those who would so trample upon liberty and justice, rather than yet again just give them carte-blanche.
Of course it's legal! President Obama is a constitutional scholar.
Sheesh!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I love the headline (really do, no /sarc) because it really shocks the monkey. It brings to mind some hypothetical Ouija Board conversation with say, a channeled framer of the Constitution or Machiavelli or Stalin --- using the USB interface Ouija Board I built for faster throughput. I will market it as IRC for the Dead. Once the modern definition of 'wiretap' is cleared up it really gets rolling.
FRANKLIN: I take it you mean the interception of private letters? We affix waxen seals to guard against casual inspection should carriers desire to do this, though there are some with great skill in revealing their contents. Steam from a kettle is often employed. But it is surely an unreasonable search for a government to do so. We also at times employ clever codes.
MACHIAVELLI: It is hard to imagine why such inspection would be desired for the massive daily packets that traverse cities, nations and oceans. Would not the burden of reading become tiresome?
STALIN: I instruct my post office to tear everything open whether there is time to read them or not. They rifle and crumple the contents. Some times they even stain the letters with wine to give correspondents the impression that there was a great feast and their precious documents were passed hand to hand and read aloud. In order to preserve equanimity the State must keep all persons on uneven footing.
ME: In these times hardly anyone speaks in code and there are no seals. We speak into our devices plainly, and the paper packet has become a flowing river of letters passed over wires. Any communication can span the globe.
FRANKLIN: No seals and plain speech everywhere. What an enlightened time!
MACHIAVELLI: So those who talk greatly outnumber those who might listen? In the cacophony of such a mob secrets may be shouted yet unheard.
STALIN: This is madness. Every telephone conversation across the border had a listener. If one was not available the operator would ring you back, at times days later. Shut it all down before it is too late.
FRANKLIN: Surely our government takes steps to protect its citizens from having their conversations heard by hostile governments?
ME: You guys are so behind the times. These are not just voices, everyone is identified and it so happens that the United States Government does most of the listening throughout the entire world, even and especially to its own citizens. People all over the world consider us scoundrels for doing this. They can even store voices and play them back years later. If a tyrant should arise, the Militia will discover that their own names and entire personal histories are laid bare, so the tyrant can clean house more efficiently than any in history.
FRANKLIN: How... can.... this.... be?? No,no no!-------- LOST CARRIER
MACHIAVELLI: How crude and uninteresting. So this is a simple story of gross stupidity and madness then. Ah, and I had hoped that as time progressed the plots of men would become more intricate. I think I will leave now to find a more suitable parallel existence.
MACHIAVELLI <has left the channel>
STALIN: Now it gets interesting. Tell me more about your government's so-called 'wiretaps'.
ME: Well, which one? I mean there are so many. You have
Local policemen tracking people with their phones, able to follow their position. The voices are inside their boxes and with a flip of the switch they could hear them. They're only supposed to flip that switch if they have permission.
It is the law under the CALEA Act that our telephone companies be able to simultaneously intercept as much as 1 in 100 conversations in cities...
Under FISA people can be followed everywhere in the country and listened to with no involvement by local police and judge.
The DEA, Treasury and IRS can do pretty much anything they want, they rely on judges that rubber stamp requests.
The NSA is a spy organization like your KGB that was bound by charter
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
At least, until a higher court judge disagrees. As of right this second, however, there was nothing illegal about the wiretaps.
Law 101.
I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!
$500 OBO Call Dread Pirate Roberts at 555-238-1212
principals only
do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I love how they have to specify "tens of thousands of Americans' phone calls". As if that wasn't clear from the previous line. Make it sound just a little worse.
Whatever happened to journalistic objectivity...
I don't understand this word "fear"? How can they "Fear" anything? Does a single one of them actually risk prosecution? Does any one of them think that, if they were prosecuted, the provisions of the Westfall act which allow the Government itself to stand for the defendant would not be invoked?
They have nothing to fear but reassignment at worst.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
And just who is this judge that decides to rubber stamp whatever the Justice department (Cartel) wants? We need to replace that judge with somebody that won't entertain that activity.
...if you unconstitutionally decree it legal. Guess they simply didn't have the right people signing paper.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/
What we need is a case like this that does not involve national security where overly broad warrants are issued very much like the warrants that are possibly secretly being issued under the Patriot Act. That is the only way we can get the constitutional issues resolved because at every turn the Federal Courts are running up against state secrets privileges when dealing with these terrorism warrants.