Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPIC Sues NSA Over Information Gathering

Posted by michael on from the that-information-is-not-available-at-RED-security-clearance-citizen dept.

Juln and many others noted that EPIC filed suit against the NSA for failing to respond to their FOIA request. Both EPIC and the House Committee which supposedly oversees the NSA have asked for documents about the extent of their domestic spying and ECHELON activities, and the NSA has refused to provide information to either. Sounds like it's time to remind the spies who runs this outfit. The story is available at many major news sites.

41 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. So what if they don't provide the documents? by ghoti · · Score: 2

    What would happen if the NSA would simply ignore the lawsuit, or not do as told? What could happen to them (other than somebody "being responsible")? Could the NSA's buildings be searched by police?

    --
    EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    1. Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by netpuppy · · Score: 2

      As far as I can tell, the NSA still has to obey court orders ... which is what EPIC will be seeking. The worse question, of course, is how you tell if they aren't complying. How much work will it take to falsify a bunch of documents, provide them to the court, and never let on whether or not they are actually doing civilian surveillance.

      The only way you could be sure they were complying would be to have open access to the information they are collecting ... and that isn't likely to happen when NSA pulls the national security card for real.

      How do you monitor something that is considered so secret that even judges and courts can't really review it?

      --
      good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
    2. Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by BVD · · Score: 2

      Nope. Congress does not really have any power over the NSA. The NSA gets its funding from the Executive Branch ( much like the secret service ) and it is agaist the law for congress to starve the Executive branch for $$$. National Security $ is paid on several lump sums, and it is up to Clinton's aids to divide it up amongst 'their' agencies.

    3. Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by Detritus · · Score: 2
      Maybe on some other planet.

      The Congress has a great deal of control over the funding of the executive branch. If they want to zero out the funding for the NSA, they could do it tomorrow. The executive branch can make policy but it can't force the congress to appropriate money to implement that policy. Agencies such as the CIA, NRO and NSA have more autonomy than other federal agencies. That could end quickly if congress gets pissed off.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  2. The real issue isn't privacy, but accountability by crashdavis · · Score: 2

    This lawsuit isn't about whether the NSA is reading email it shouldn't be reading (to say nothing of faxes, voice recognition on phone convs, etc.). The evidence is overwhelming that it is. The real issue is whether anyone has the ability to stop them, which I doubt.

    They have the story of how all this snooping is necessary to fight against all these imaginary terrorists out there down pat by now.

    I'll be surprised if it ever actually gets to a trial.

    --
    "The difference between theory and practice is small in theory and large in practice..."
  3. The big question... by Issue9mm · · Score: 3

    Well, it seems like most of this has been discussed recently in many other related stories, so I'll try to be brief.

    The biggest question I've run across thus far, that nobody's been able to definitively answer, is how accountable is the NSA, and to whom? The NSA seems to be flying in the face of accountability on this one, simply refusing to produce documents that they should be entitled to reproduce.

    I'm hoping that the NSA does have to produce said documents, so that we may be able to find out, at least to some extent, how badly we're being spied on, or at least what they're willing to admit.

    Another part of me (take this how you want) actually hopes that the NSA is found in a manner that they don't have to produce these documents. This could set a precedent for us, the common people, allowing us to keep our private documents, and not be forced to make them public. Of course, we know that won't happen, but still, it's nice to dream.

  4. Good Guv, Bad Guv by Tom+Christiansen · · Score: 4
    in this country, we are raised to fear and distrust the government.
    (I presume you mean in the United States of America.)

    Well, certainly many of us are, and by and large, I'd say your statement is considerably more true here in America than it is in many other countries. Isn't one of the fabled three great lies I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.?

    My perception is that countries with more paperwork, regulations, and government overhead actually get that way because people like having a government to take care of them and watch over them. Compare the American sentiment toward government with how people feel in France and Germany, for example. Where many Americans tend to place government in the problem set, I get the feeling that many Europeans place government in the solution set.

    Does America fear government because of 1776? Is part of it because we were often colonized by refugees, even back to the Pilgrims? Does France similarly dislike nobility because of their own revolution? If so, why do they enjoy so much government intervention?

    What about Australia? They, too, were colonized by many of society's underdesirables. Do they have a similar attitude toward their government? Does their not having a revolution influence their viewpoint?

    1. Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Compare the American sentiment toward government with how people feel in France and Germany, for example. Where many Americans tend to place government in the problem set, I get the feeling that many Europeans place government in the solution set.

      I think that a lot of the problems people feel with their government, particularly the federal government arise from the sheer size of the US, and it's cultural diversity.

      It is impossible for the federal government to do ANYTHING that doesn't gore some ox somewhere, so people would rather have it do nothing. This sort of problem doesn't exist, say in France, where you have really only two major groups - those who live in Paris, and those who are beneath notice by the Parisiennes.

      Do Americans feel anywhere nearly as strongly about their state governments? I really don't think so.

    2. Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      It's because, here. we don't take government as a given. We know that we created the government to serve us. In other countries, the government was usually inherited. Way back when, we purposefully set up our government to work for us, and limited its powers to specific areas. They knew that governments were, inherently, untrustworthy. Power corrupts, etc. Our government was a reaction against traditional governments, where rights are grantedto citizens at the government's discretion. Those governments set themselves abobe the people. Ours is of the people, but stays that way only due to vigilance on the part of the governed. We've been remiss recently -- especially since World War I.


      That it's grown outside its bounds is laregely our fault for letting our employee -- the government -- develop a bad attitude. It doesn't have to stay that way.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    3. Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by osu-neko · · Score: 2
      IANAH (I Am Not A Historian), but I suspect the reason American's hate government is that we're really not used to it. Europeans have lived under one form of government or another for a long, long time, and they're really had no choice about it -- you couldn't just move away, everyplace else also had a government. In the US, for a long time what little government we had was from overseas. Then we revolted and set up our own local government. But if you didn't like it, move west. For most of the history of life on the North American continent, if you didn't like being governed, you could just pack your bags, head out, and set up home someplace away from government. In wasn't until 1890 that the frontier era was declared over, and even then, it was easy to get away from people if you wanted. Technically, you were under the domain of some brand new state government, but it really didn't matter much. So really, after thousands of years of human habitation and almost 500 years of European decended habitation, it's only been the last century that American's really had to put up with government. So, we don't take it granted that the government can or should do this or that, we get quite huffy every time it seems to be expanding its influence in any way. I suspect our history has more to do with that than anything else.

      --

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  5. EPIC's press release by rlkoppenhaver · · Score: 3

    can be found at http://www.epic.org/open_gov/ foia/nsa_suit_12_99.html

  6. Contempt charges? by Tom+Christiansen · · Score: 2
    So, they spurned the House subcommittee, eh? If Congress can't make them do it, I don't imagine that they'll pay attention to anyone else, either.

    Then again, getting thrown in jail for Contempt of Congress, Contempt of Court, or both, would probably stand a good chance of being noticed.

  7. Surpise, Surpise by DJ+Cricket · · Score: 2

    Just like the government. Need to make it look like they were innocent and knew nothing about it. A big investigation will be held, some lacky will get fired after he 'abused his office' and all of america will sleep better knowing the threat is gone.

  8. Come on, people by finkployd · · Score: 5

    Why are you acting like the US is a place where the government is out to protect the citizens. Government agencies believe to the core that they know better than us. That's why they take our money and spend it better than we would, take our children and send them off to die someplace that hates us, take our guns since we can't be trusted with them, and take out privacy because who knows what damage we might be planning behind closed doors.

    Our system of government once worked, and worked pretty good. But like all governments eventually do, it became corrupted and ceased to work for the people, it now works for itself.

    Our rights have pretty much become non existant. What were once considered unalienable rights that could not be taken away are now dangerous to the public (or to the government), and must be regulated, or removed. We won't miss them, we'll be given promises of safety in return.

    Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.

    Nope, not in this age. We'll just express outrage today then vote the same people into office because they belong to the party that once held the ideals we believed in.

    Finkployd

    1. Re:Come on, people by Tiro_Dianoga · · Score: 2

      Your points are reasonably justifiable, but we need to remember who we are dealing with.

      >> Nope, not in this age. We'll just express
      >> outrage today then vote the same people into
      >> office because they belong to the party that
      >> once held the ideals we believed in.

      I'm guessing you are talking about the (Congressional) Republicans.

      Its the Executive branch thats running the NSA bullshit. That's a branch run by non-elected bureaucrats. It was designed to be overseed by Congress. Sadly, the quality of oversight from Congress has been poor in the last 30 or so years (except when they've been trying to pin scandal directly to Clinton). No president really has control of what goes on very far below the cabinet level, and most probably don't care.

      Besides, the office of the President is pretty much a national popularity contest. Presidents can be passionate about issues, but usually only pay attention to the really

      I am personally very proud of Republicans because of their persistance on this issue. The issue is still only at the subcommittee level, though, and the NSA will probably adopt a strategy of doing just enough to keep from REALLY pissing Congress off.

      I generally favor Democratic policy, but I don't know what they think about this. Members of Congress won't speak publicly about this, at least not until the public demands them to take a stand, so I guess its time for me to get out the stationary and write.

      So where does this go? I can see some members of Congress attempting shutting down the NSA. It certainly has the power. It would be interesting but disheartening to see a power-play reaction from the NSA, that could result in Constitutional crisis (!).

      I think the bureaucrat-politician distinction should be made. According to the Constitution, politicians run Congress and bureaucrats do what the politicians say their job is. What's happened now is the NSA has become independent of the process. They get to pass secret budgets, and they get to ignore Congress' questions, both of which are apparently unConstitutional.

      The way to abort this orchestration of bureaucracy is to remind the politicians what their job is. I think many will be more than willing to stir up and demagogue an issue as valid as this. More power to them...

      everyone's begging for an answer
      without regard for validity
      the searching never ends
      it goes on and on and on for eternity.


      --
      Boo!
    2. Re:Come on, people by warlock · · Score: 2

      The problem, as you point out, really boils down to the majority of people in $COUNTRY falling for that "trust us, for we screw you for your own good" line. Its sad, but it happens as people stop caring for liberty having taken it for granted after a couple of generations of being "free".

      We, the rest that know better, constantly remind them that liberty that is not guarded will be eventually lost, but then we're labeled paranoid or something.

      Here are some quotes from fellow paranoid people then:

      The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do.
      --Eric Hoffer

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
      --Benjamin Franklin

      Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.
      --Louis D. Brandeis

      In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it.
      --John Fitzgerald Kennedy

      I would rather belong to a poor nation that was free than to a rich nation that had ceased to be in love with liberty.
      --Woodrow Wilson

      -W (who lives in a poor European country)


  9. Big Brother IS watching... by synesthesia · · Score: 2
    Well, 15 years late, we've finally come to _1984_. While not the first news that's been broken about ECHELON, it's amazing how few people actually know about this program. What's even scarier (to me) is the reaction I get from my students when I tell them what we know of ECHELON so far. 80 percent of them don't really care, and the remaining 20 percent care but don't get upset. I'm just a cranky paranoid prof. in their eyes, and admittedly, I do tend to get cranky when I see my constitutional rights infringed upon. But is it paranoia when there is proof that people are listening to my conversations??? This is the type of government intrustion that the 6th ammendment is supposed to protect us against. (If anyone is unfamiliar with THAT, take a look at: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm )

    If anyone else gets stark-raving-fist-pounding-clothes-ripping mad about this type of stuff (or just a little miffed), please take a gander at http://www.aclu.org/action/echelon106.html . There's some info there on ECHELON and an opportunity to fax your congress members and senators about the NSA and their ECHELON program. I wonder what would happen if the slashdot effect went political? Boggles the mind...

    1. Re:Big Brother IS watching... by alhaz · · Score: 3

      You see, that's what's *Really Sad*

      What we're dangerously short of in this country is people who believe strongly about things who can keep from making themselves appear the fool.

      I'm from Utah, lived here most of my life, though I've traveled a lot. A few years back, slick willie unilaterally declared a national park down in our southern region.

      Y'all thought it was pretty neat, us getting another national park. But, all states rights aside, we were, for the most part, pretty miffed about it. You've gotta understand, first time around, Willie took third place here.

      There were just a couple things that ticked us off, states rights aside.

      First, the particular sort of clean-burning coal that can be mined there, is pretty rare. It's only present in economically feasable ammounts in that spot in Utah, and in some parts of Indonesia. From an economic standpoint, that ticked off the potential coal miners who might have had jobs there. We can't all be geeks.

      Second, the federal government already owns 72% of our land mass. That really chapps our hide, since we're the only state they've done that to. Snatching another parcel of it and declaring it a park sortof adds insult to injury.

      Third, a signifigant portion of that land mass belonged to our department of education. Utah is both the state that spends the least ammount per student, and the state that spends the largest portion of it's budget on education. Why? Because our department of education isn't able to raise signifigant funds on it's own. Primarily because the land parcels alloted to it are out in the wilderness, surrounded by federal land, and restricted from development.

      Fourth, because declaring a parcel of land a park is the second best way to ensure that the wilderness is *degraded*, rather than preserved. Second only to developing it commercially. If you want to preserve wilderness, you declare it a primitive area and restrict access to humans and animals only, no wheeled vehicles of any kind. There are some beautiful primitive areas in northern Utah. Visit them some time. Be prepared to hike and get rained on. Bring your own food, pack out your own garbage.

      Now, there's a good reason I'm explaining all of this, it's not just a soap box.

      A few months after Willie pulled this stunt, a local college hosted a debate between various pundits and officials on the issue.

      Among those who were present was the head man from the Utah Wilderness Alliance. People who feel very strongly about preserving nature.

      What transpired made me pretty angry, and what made me angry came from the UWA guy, and not because of what he believed.

      It was because when they finally asked him a question he didn't have a good answer for, his reaction was to tell his heartbreaking story of his failure to integrate with normal society and his spiritual rebirth in the desert badlands.

      He sounded like a complete kook. People walked out. I was one of them.

      What's heartbreaking is that the people who really care about an issue somehow can't keep their pants on in public, most of them at least.

      It's pretty simple guys, you've just got to maintain your sanity, or at least a good illusion of sanity.

      When you stand up and proudly reveal that you're a borderline nutcase, you discredit yourself, your followers, and everything you believe in.

      And you do the nation a disservice by letting your issue be labeled irrational by behaving in an irrational manner.

      --
      This is just like television, only you can see much further.
  10. NSA = way out of control by coldfusion · · Score: 2
    Someone needs to pull the NSA back in - they're rapidly becoming a rogue government agency. They don't respond to congressional requests for information, they don't talk to the media, they don't believe in the FOIA, they don't believe in upholding their charter and federal law (about spying on domestic communications). That's a dangerous situation, and so I hope this (and other) court cases work out.

    Makes you sometimes wonder if NSA's secrecy is because they don't have anything, rather than because they have too much.

    --
    -cf
  11. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Tom+Christiansen · · Score: 2
    Great title. It's often quoted, sometimes a bit mangled. But it's just as true now as then, which just goes to show you that Man remains Man, regardless of how "civilized" he becomes.

    The original wording was

    "Pone seram, cohibe." Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor.

    "Bolt her in, keep her indoors." But who is to guard the guards themselves? Your wife arranges accordingly and begins with them.

    It's from line 347 of the sixth Satire from Juvenal (circa 60-130 anno domini). For the curious, here's an English translation of the whole thing--since for some peculiar reason, Babelfish is completely ignorant of Latin. :-(

    Then again, Juvenal was discussing women here, not spooks, and one presumes (or hopes) that these are slightly different concerns. :-)

  12. Danger Will Robinson... by GW+Hayduke · · Score: 2

    If you haven't all figured out by now,
    Responding to ANY sort of /. article dealing with encryption, The Alphabits bowl of cereal the US Government Hides behind (NSA, CIA, DEA, FBI, BLM, DOJ, MS, HUD, LMNOP...) automatically kicks the chemical tracking elements that are implemented in caffeine (most noticably in Mt.Dew coffee, surge and jolt.. ever wonder why they called them JAVA cookies????) and are transferred through our keyboards through an electro-chemical process which identifies us through our own unique keyboard typing stresses, that returns the MAC addresses of our brains and livers to the great datawarehouse that is buried right next to the Church of Latter-Day Saints geneology archives in Big Cottonwood Canyon, or is it Little?????.. So when the revolution comes, they will be able to track us down and put us to use encoding the records of the world in a new technological breakthrough for Y2K... the keypunch...
    NOOOOO... I went through that once.. never again...
    Now where did I put that red pill?????

    Oh never mind


    --
    -- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal
  13. Single standard! by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

    I think you're confusing the difference between private citizens and a spy agency of the federal government. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed in this country, unlike others. We, as the bosses, the ultimate authority have every right to compel the NSA to pony up. Whenever the government isn't held accountable, it's the citizens who have shirked their duty. We also have every right to hide what we're doing from them. In most other countries, the government grants rights to its citizens. In this one, the citizens delegate some power to the government. It's important to remember that, and make sure it stays that way.

    In short, I hope the NSA does end up being forced to deliver. If they can spy on us, why can't we "spy" on them? Who are they?



    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  14. Re:Come on, people -- toss the tea! by 1010011010 · · Score: 3

    Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.

    You know what? We don't need another Declaration or revolution. We just need to start defending our rights as citizens. The government only gets away with what we let it get away with. "No" is the most powerful word in the English language. And we, as U.S. Citizens, are entitled to tell our government(s) "no" any old time we want. If enough americans decided to not pay federal income taxes one year, it would all be over for the IRS. They can hassle a small number of dissidents, but not a large number. Especially not a large number exercising their 2nd amemdment rights.

    Our rights are taken away only when we allow them to be. Learn how to say "No!" again! U.S. citizens are oppressed only to the extent that they allow themselves to be! Keep in mind that the government works for us, at our discretion. If you ran a business, and your security guards were caught rifling through your private files, you'd fire them, and probably prosecute them, right? Why is it different for the government?

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  15. NSA and plausible denial by hogwaller · · Score: 2

    My step-dad's dad used to work for the NSA as
    a cryptographer MANY years ago (he's dead now).
    He never talked about his work or his job. Ever.

    The way agencies like the NSA work is through
    compartmentalization and plausible denial. No one
    within the agency really knows what anyone else is doing.
    The vast majority of NSA employees
    are day to day footsoldiers, the usual kind of worker that any large bureau needs to keep functioning.
    But the culture of plausible denial pervades the place, so even the paper clip order is classified.

    The NSA will never release any meaningful document regarding ECHELON. It's like asking
    a leopard to change its spots.

    Two great books about the NSA are "The Puzzle
    Palace" and "Wilderness of Mirrors". Maybe I'll submit a review to Hemos....

  16. Checks and balances by Robin+Hood · · Score: 2
    I for one think it's great that this can happen. Even if I didn't believe EPIC holds the "high moral ground" in this case, I would still think this is, in part, a good thing. The U.S. Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one governmental body, executive, legislative, or judicial, would have too much power. (Although I think the Supreme Court is starting to have too much legislative power for my taste, but that's another subject). But then these three-letter agencies were set up, with little or no checks on their power. Sure, they have a charter, but what happens if/when they break that charter?

    Well, this is what happens. Groups of citizens say to these government bodies, "Your just authority derives only from our consent, and we don't consent to this." Now it merely remains to be seen what the NSA will do.

    You know, in a way their actions so far make a weird kind of sense. I mean, it's a really good idea for an agency devoted to cyptography and information-gathering to release as little information as possible to the outside world. Which is why when you ask an NSA employee anything, he/she is likely to respond, "No comment." It's standard policy. But it seems that someone forgot just exactly who they're supposed to report to, and who they're supposed to keep in the dark. You keep your enemies in the dark, not your bosses. It would seem that someone forgot who the NSA's bosses are.
    -----
    The real meaning of the GNU GPL:

    --
    The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
    "The Source will be with you... Always."
    1. Re:Checks and balances by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      but what happens if/when they break that charter?

      They lose their funding (at least the amount used to fund whatever it is that is deemed illegal), and/or whatever upper-level management involved gets slapped with fines or indictments.

      Essentially, Congress ultimately decides things like this, but really any of the 3 branches of government could step up and kill the NSA, if suitable conditions and information arise.

  17. Congress is the good guy by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

    Our congress is made up of our own people. You don't just join up with congress and sign a document saying you will ignore the bit about being a representative of the people and do whatever it takes to further the evil causes of the hidden government.

    Remember: this whole thing started with a House subcommittee inquiry.

    I know it may seem like congress is just another government agency that does things behind closed doors, but to those of us that actually know a bit about our government know better. Try visiting to www.congress.gov. You can find a detailed accounting of everything that was done in the house and senate on a particular day (as recent as the previous day).

    For this reason, any government *agencies* that might be acting contrary to the wishes of a group of people (or the law for that matter), would have to take extraordinary steps to *avoid* such government branches as the legislative and judicial. So, basically, our "government" *is* largely innocent and knew nothing about the activities of the agency. Agencies like this are largely their own entities. They don't have to share every detail about their operation with other government branches/entities.

    Our system of government works, IF we start taking a part in it again. The percentage of our population that has the faintest inkling of what our congress is doing, what laws are being passed, or even who their senators and representatives are is an insignificant fraction (I'd bet under 1%), despite the fact that this information is (by law, I believe) posted and made available very conspicuously.

    In fact, it's this same government that passed the Freedom of Information act which is allowing people to even request these documents in the first place. Hardly the act of a government that wants to hide details about its operation.

    As far as the "fix" of firing someone set up to take the heat, remember again that congress is made up of people that represent you. Chances are, if you're not satisfied with the NSA's "fix", there will be those in congress that aren't satisfied with it either. I really doubt it'll die that easily.

    Have some faith in the people you elected. If you can't trust them, why did you elect them?

  18. Re:What the Hell are they doing with all our..... by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

    Assuming they are acting domestically, they're probably monitoring those that have ties with people they're monitoring overseas. If I were the NSA I'd be rather interested in the conversations going on between US citizens and people close to Saddam Hussein.

    As others have suggested, they could also be monitoring transmissions, e-mails and phone calls for certain key phrases or conversations, analyzing those that contain suspicious material.

    Of course, we don't really have much proof of such domestic activity (hence the request for documents), but it's not hard to come up with a few explanations for domestic surveillance that aren't so far-fetched. Use your imagination.

    Of course, I'm not saying they're right in doing so at all.

  19. Re:Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 2

    What really needs to happen is for a trusted oversight committee to be formed. The NSA should not and will not release anything that has any pertinence to National Security to the general public. Why? Because then it's in the open for the "enemy" as well. If the NSA's email were available for everyone to peruse as Microsofts was for their trial, that'd really spell the end of their effectiveness. Because of their secrecy, we, and everyone else not directly affiliated with them, can only speculate as to the extent of their capabilities. If their abilities were to be common knowledge, then it'd be much easier to devise ways of sidestepping them.

    So, what would really need to happen is for a 3rd party committee of 100% trusted individuals should audit their work in order to accertain if they are or are not overstepping their bounds. If it's found that they are indeed breaking the law in some aspect of their operation, that can be brought to light. But until they're actually found guilty of wrongdoing, it just isn't safe to open up their innards for all to see...

  20. Re:the NSA... by Fastolfe · · Score: 3

    I agree.. it all boils down to how much privacy you're willing to sacrifice for security. So long as my private details are kept separate from my identity as much as possible, so long as these details are dealt with by computer as much as possible, and so long as those people chosen to deal with such data do so discretely and without disclosure, I'd be willing to sacrifice a lot if it meant some terrorist threat would be neutralized and lives would be saved. The idea is that if such an "invasion" never affects me, my life or *others' perception of me*, then it doesn't really affect me at all, and I'd be willing to take some sacrifices here.

    There are others that don't agree with me, (many very vocally so), which is fine. I'm not going to force my privacy limits onto anybody else (as many do). It's just that there will *always* be a trade-off here, and no matter where you draw the line, there will *always* be people that want that line elsewhere, so the best you can do (from the government's standpoint) is to draw the line in the best place you can and to do your best to appease those who want it elsewhere (which may include keeping the location of that line quiet).

    Again, I'm not trying to say this is right or wrong, but there is logic in the government's (NSA's) behavior. Whether that's a violation of our constitution or laws is another matter, and one that will probably be met and settled, but just remember: For every personal, domestic privacy gain, we lose ground in the national security game. In this day and age, if this loss is acceptable to you, then by all means proceed to tear the NSA a new asshole if it suits you.

  21. Re:Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

    If it's found that they are indeed breaking the law in some aspect of their operation, that can be brought to light.

    And if this committee came out and said, "The NSA is acting within the bounds of their charter and in the spirit of protecting the interests of the United States," would people really be satisfied?

    Especially with the number of conspiracy theorists among Slashdot posters, would this really be enough? Who's to say the committee isn't being influenced somehow? What if they were corrupt and in on the conspiracy from the start? What if they were brainwashed? What if they were replaced with duplicates developed in a secret NSA laboratory?

    The most vocal of us would never be satisfied until they saw, first-hand, that the NSA wasn't doing anything wrong (which is obviously quite impossible), and even if they did, they would continue to be suspicious ("Why didn't they let me into *that* room.. I bet that's where they do it all..")

    So long as the NSA has its veil of secrecy (a much needed thing), there will always be people in the US that believe the worst.

    But yes, for those of us that are more "normal", such a trusted committee inquiry seems to be the logical way to handle any probe into the NSA's actions.

  22. Re:The real issue isn't privacy, but accountabilit by symbolic · · Score: 2

    To add to this, we don't know exactly what the NSA does in terms of the RESULTS of what it is actually able to accomplish. Having no accountability, what exactly do we GET for the millions of dollars that are spent funding this organization each year? If the NSA is as important as *IT* seems to think it is, why wasn't it able to prevent the bombing of the Murrah building by Timothy McVeigh? Or the bombing of the World Trade Center? Or the top-secret information on nuclear weapons that made its way into the hands of the Chinese government?



    Even if the NSA makes the claim that it "didn't have the proper surveillance resources" or some other nonsense, it doesn't MATTER. If someone is truly intent on committing an act of aggression, they don't NEED the internet, OR a phone, OR a computer. Can you say, "Doiyyyyy!"

  23. FBI, not NSA, is the real worry by Matthew+O'Keefe · · Score: 3

    The NSA's charter does not include domestic surveillance, period. As I understand it, any NSA employee found to have participated in domestic surveillance is instantly fired. If you resent the NSA because of their role in suppressing US encryption technology, I think that's changed: they're too smart not to have known that cats been out of the bag for a long time. Your real beef should be with the FBI, which AFAIK has been the agency most opposed to any loosening of encryption regulations in the US. The FBI is charged with domestic surveillance, not the NSA. The FBI is pushing Internet "wiretaps" on the IETF and other sorts of restrictions to electronic freedom, not the NSA.

    The NSA was formed for a very specific reason: before WWII, military intelligence on foreign governments was gathered by the Army and Navy. Interservice rivalries meant this intelligence information was often not shared. In particular, the Navy had extensive information about Japanese preparations for war in the Pacific and was aware that the Japanese embassy in Washington was destroying documents, a sure sign of impending hostilities. This information was not shared with the Army, which was charged with protecting Hawaii, and this is part of the reason the Army was caught completely unawares by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor (incompetence, arrogance, stupidity also played a role). [Henry Clausen was tasked by the War Department to investigate why we were taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor. His book, "Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement", tells this story.]

    The NSA's mission is vital in providing information about foreign government's intentions in what remains a very dangerous world. If you aren't curious about the military intentions of North Korea, China, Iraq, and Russia (for example) given their history in the 20th century, then you are highly naive about the dangers facing both the US and its allies. The one job even libertarians give the government is national defense. Let's let the NSA do this job right.

    And why is EPIC wasting its time with FOIA requests and other kinds of posturing when it could be doing something about strenghtening 4th amendment protections (prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant) for email communications. Its outrageous that the cops (or your boss) have to get a warrant to wiretap your phone, but don't need a warrant to search your email.

  24. Re:What really is the problem? A few ideas by Chompster · · Score: 2

    I will agree with the above statements, but I believe the comments written above this one were less of a "blame the NSA" and more of a "this is another example of the corruptness of our government" argument.

    The main thing you have to remember about survailence is this: Consider the number of people in the U.S.; some 200 million, i suppose, and in order for a given random individual who happens to be making an especially seditious post-- they would have to have very very many homes or businesses surveiled. Stop for a minute and consider the sheer volume of survailence equipment that would entail! Of course, even the strangest things are possible.

    Does the FBI or NSA(or whatever government agency) really keep tabs on every fractious individual? It is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. And secondly, in theory, they should not be so stupid as to partake in such actions. Think about the implications! The scorn and odium generated from such actions should be immense!

    Well, i will cease rambling and make a point.

    This implies several possibilities:

    1. The FBI is NOT surveiling us, it is merely paranoia and a misguided search for answers.
    2. The FBI is surveiling a high number or random locations in order to gain intel. The company from which they ordered their supplies was forced into silence and the records of the purchase were successfully destroyed. Our supposedly wasted tax money has been used for the purpose of purchases similar to these.
    3. The FBI is surveiling a high number of random locations in order to gain intel. They have another means of acquiring equipment, perhaps through the government. This could mean that there are government factories.
    4. (in deferrence) The FBI does partake in surveilance, but only under certain circumstances such as people whom are reported to partake in things such as gang activity, certain activist groups, etc,. Since not many are watched, not much equipment is needed.
    5. (Ad Absurdum) The FBI a/o NSA keeps track of everyone's characteristics. Seditious individuals are tracked constantly, and surveiled at all times. The resources needed for such operations are either purchased from allied businesses or from acquired from a possibly unknown and vast governent resource. If even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence, leaving themselves unknown.
    6. (the mean) The FBI engages in surveilance, but is kept in check by other parts of the government. Some invasion of privacy they get away with because of corruption. They do not spy very much, and if even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence. Their invasion of privacy is by no means right, but does not account for a major conspiracy. They do move against seditious groups, often totally ignoring any rights they have as citizens.
    7. (a completely different view) The FBI does not exist, but is just a facade used to deter and redirect. The real agency engages in any of the six above.


    If there are any you think i left out feel free to tell me. Solving a problem like this can be done using the classic and pragmatic scientific method. Which would mean we are 1.indentifying our problem or 2.creating a hypothesis.

    Either way, it is a constructive way to deal with this problem. Granted some of my ideas above were very fantastic, but because the chance that they could exist was greater than 0% I had to include them.

    Lastly, i would like to say that if we are able to indentify our problem correctly, then we can more properly deal with it. Throwing rocks and shooting guns (or screaming conspiracy for that matter) does naught but rouse people into impulsive and probably destructive action. We have a problem to solve, and we should solve it the best that we are able. Hopefully.

    -Chompster
    Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
    Don't Panic!

    --
    This isn't a redundant post; I just set my threshold to 6.
  25. Re:the NSA... by Shelled · · Score: 3
    I agree.. it all boils down to how much privacy you're willing to sacrifice for security.

    The same justification was given for the KGB. They were highly effective in the national security game. Any guess how many lives were spent, how much suffering there was, in the pursuit of "security" and "saving lives"? You're right, it is a balance between security and freedom, and there'll always be an argument about the finer details.

    There's an interesting article in the December Harper's outlining how many freedoms are already forfeit or infringed in fighting the war on drugs. They include:

    - more restrictions on free speech (stemming from doctors recommending the medical use of marijuana)

    - curtailments to freedom of religion (based on a case of two Native Americans practicing an ancient rite involving peyote)

    - the right to vote ("one in three black men in the both Alabama and Florida is permanently barred from voting" because they were incarcerated)

    - unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")

    - property rights (property can now be considered guilty of a crime, you have to prove it isn't. If you can't, or miss the ten day deadline for challenging the seizure, it becomes part of next year's police force funding.)

    - and facing your accusers (in order to protect 'professional' informants)

    Add to this the privacy rights lost in the fight against terrorism and pornography, and the erosion that continues on an almost daily basis (thanks Billy!) Now finally consider how much all this protection has really meant in your own life. Is the balance still a good one?

  26. Re:the NSA... by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

    The same justification was given for the KGB.

    I wasn't trying to justify an invasion of privacy. I was just pointing out the line that must be drawn, and what sits on either side of it.

    more restrictions on free speech (stemming from doctors recommending the medical use of marijuana)

    I wasn't aware that doctors were breaking the law by making such a recommendation. Do you have more information to back this up? To my knowledge, marijuana is not classified as a drug unfit for medicinal value. I believe there is an official classification system for these types of things (based on how dangerous it is and setting conditions on how it can be used or prescribed), and marijuana is towards the bottom of that list.

    the right to vote ("one in three black men in the both Alabama and Florida is permanently barred from voting" because they were incarcerated)

    What does this have to do with the war on drugs?

    If you're convicted of a felony, you lose the right to vote. That's something that's been on the books forever. Just because people are getting convicted of felonies and losing the right to vote doesn't mean we should stop fighting the crimes. Or would you rather see convicted felons have the right to vote again?

    unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")

    Again, I wouldn't mind seeing information to back these claims up. If agents are breaking into homes without a search warrant, that's something more people need to be aware of, and those agents need to be tried and convicted of the crime. Though, if they have a valid search warrant, I don't really see what the problem is. If you don't like the way search warrants are issued, take that up with your legislature.

    property rights (property can now be considered guilty of a crime

    Properly restated: Property used to commit a crime can be confiscated by the authorities as evidence (and essentially becomes forfeit), where you are not necessarily entitled to get it back.

    That's just part of the law itself. If you feel that is unconstitutional, it's your DUTY to bring this to the attention of your lawmakers or file a lawsuit with the intention of having the law declared unconstitutional and invalid.

    and facing your accusers (in order to protect 'professional' informants)

    I didn't realize this was a right. Where in the Bill of Rights is this "right" protected?

    These issues are each little flame wars in their own rights. I'm not going to try and argue about how they're good or bad. If you don't like the laws that make these things happen, let your lawmakers know. Get something done, don't just post articles in Slashdot about it.

  27. Re:Spokane Free Speech fight of 1910 by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but I wouldn't really call drug users an organized group. It's not like they're staging "national grow some dope" days or anything.

    And, yes, it is difficult to get people to take action when they're basically happy, and not willing to give up anything short-term to gain something long term. But, they're basically happy, after all...

    But another problem is, they're uninformed. Even juries are usually uninformed. Typically, courts try to keep juries from knowing that they are the law, practically speaking. Juries can legally strike down laws rather than either convict or free the defendant. Most times, the judge does not include that in the instructions to the jury. Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and supreme Court Justice, (1796-1804?) said: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Look here for more info on that.

    The problem is a citizenry uninterested in protecting its own freedoms reminds me of what Heinlein said about the draft: "countries which require a draft to defend themselves deserve to perish" -- or some such. I can't find the actual quote at the moment. Here's a zinger from Sam Adams, though:

    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

    If you're intersted in areading a lot of pro-liberty maxims and aphorisms, look here.

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  28. Re:I hope the US brings the NSA in line by Detritus · · Score: 2
    Everyone spies on everyone else, whether they are allies or enemies. Secretary of State (later War) Stimson's naive view that "Gentlemen do not read other people's mail" has never been popular. Even Stimson changed his mind on the subject.

    Are you going to throw France out of the EU? The DGSE has a very active intelligence program. They spy on everyone.

    The CIA and NSA are supposed to collect intelligence that may have military or diplomatic value to the United States. That includes information on the armed forces and weapons systems of our allies. After a coup, yesterday's ally may be today's enemy. Weapons systems are often sold to countries that may not always be friendly to the United States.

    Echelon is just a way to pool resources, share intelligence and avoid duplication of effort.

    If you don't like it, use encryption and avoid satellite and microwave links. If you transmit information over the airwaves, you run the risk of having it intercepted by any intelligence agency with SIGINT capabilities. Even if the NSA was closed down, there would be a long list of other intelligence agencies to worry about.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  29. Re:I hope the US brings the NSA in line by Detritus · · Score: 2
    If you wait for a war, especially in modern times, it is too late. You need an existing intelligence infrastructure and it takes years to get it up to speed.

    Ideally, war can be prevented or avoided with good intelligence. Part of the stability of the Cold War was due to the United States having accurate information on Soviet strategic forces such as long range bombers and ICBMs. That took some of the fire out of the arms race and allowed the United States to make decisions based on reality, rather than Kruschev speeches or red scare paranoia in congress.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  30. Re:the NSA... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    According to the article, the federal drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, "is threatening to arrest any doctor who merely mentioned to a patient that marijuana might alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS, cancer, or other serious ailment."

    It seems to me that this is rather weak evidence that any doctor is having his First Amendment rights trampled on. Until such an arrest actually occurs, this to me is just some mouthing off by a person who has no actual power to put his thought into action.

    The author was making the point that so many people are being caught up in the 'drug net' that significant percentages of some social groups are losing the right to vote. Only ten states currently banish felons for life. And, yes, if you've done the time I do think you should get the vote back.

    This is not a case where individual rights are being eroded. As the original correspondent noted, disenfranchising felons has been practice in the US for a long time.

    Since the early 1980's the Supreme Court has authorized cascading exceptions to this rule, allowing police helicopters to peer into windows, highway troopers to search the passengers of cars whose drivers appear suspicious, and, most notoriously, state agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of a crime."

    This is not new! Police have had hot pursuit search powers for much longer than the early '80s. Even under the Consitution there are exceptions to requirements for search warrants - customs agents, for example are not required to obtain warrants before conducting searches.

    Beginning in 1974 the Supreme Court blessed the unholy idea that property could be seized and sold by the government without arrest, conviction, or due process.

    This is one that is real, and very much a problem. One of the tricks is that by seizing property you can impoversh the accused, making it impossible for him to pay for legal defense.

    On facing an accuser in a criminal trail

    Again, this is a long established principle, not something new. The fact is that some law enforcement agents must remain anonymous to be able to do their work. Like most Constitutional issues, there are no absolutes. You have the right to do xyz UNLESS it infringes on the right of somebody else to do something important.

  31. Re:The real issue isn't privacy, but accountabilit by gorilla · · Score: 2
    I think you have too look at why terrorism occurs in various parts of the world, and compare the circumstances to the USA.

    There is no substantial movement anywhere within the US for independence. This is the cause of some of the terrorism related to Northern Ireland, in Southern Spain, and the Middle East.

    There is also no engrained religious conflicts, the cause of some of the terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and India.

    Most importantly, there isn't a history of these conflicts going on for generations. Indeed, the act of emigration tends to cause people to concentrate on their similarities instead of their differences, causing the formation of communities from 'the old country', sharing their experiences as they become acustomed to their new nation.

    Given this, the US does not have a low level of terrorism due to any action by it's government, but due to it's internal sociopolitical makeup.