Slashdot Mirror
EPIC Sues NSA Over Information Gathering
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.
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.
can be found at http://www.epic.org/open_gov/ foia/nsa_suit_12_99.html
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?