Slashdot Log In
National Intelligence Director Seeks Expansion of Spy Powers
Journal written by Erris (531066) and posted by
Zonk
on Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:53 PM
from the can-someone-update-my-file-please-i-think-my-picture-is-old dept.
from the can-someone-update-my-file-please-i-think-my-picture-is-old dept.
Erris writes "The Bush administration is seeking even less judicial oversight for their spying efforts both here and abroad. An AP story is discussing proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act proposed by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. 'The changes McConnell is seeking mostly affect a cloak-and-dagger category of warrants used to investigate suspected spies, terrorists and other national security threats. The court-approved surveillance could include planting listening devices and hidden cameras, searching luggage and breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.' One of their specific goals is prosecution immunity for communications companies who comply with the program, a sheild for groups that violate privacy laws in turning over information to the NSA. The article notes that 'Critics question whether the changes are needed and worry about what the Bush administration has in store, given a rash of allegations about domestic surveillance and abuse of power.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: DOJ Still Looks To Have Suit Against Verizon Tossed 79 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell acknowledging that the 'private sector' had a hand in assisting the president's warrantless wiretapping initiative, the DOJ is ever more strenuously demanding that the suit against Verizon be dropped. 'The Justice Department attorneys argue McConnell's statements did nothing to change the fact that it hasn't ever confirmed any of the activities alleged by the class action plaintiffs--and has, in fact, denied the existence of any sort of "dragnet." The arguments made by the class action plaintiffs rest on nothing but "speculation," the attorneys wrote. In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
As someone who voted republican... (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who voted democratic... (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who voted for Ralph Nader (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:As someone who voted democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too late. You didn't respond when they used Terrorism to erode many of your own rights. You didn't respond when they commenced a war against consensual, victimless "crime." You didn't respond when they redefined the commerce clause as meaning "anything we want it to mean." You didn't respond when they implemented FISA, the true beginning of legal "we don't need no warrant." You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-travel lists. You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-sell-to lists. You didn't respond when they violated the sex offender's rights, and the gun owner's rights, by imposing ex post facto punishment. You didn't respond when they began to sponsor religion. You didn't respond when they decided they could torture. You didn't respond when they put domestic internment camps into place. You didn't respond when martial law became valid for "anything the executive says it is." You didn't respond when warrants became secondary and the police became able to break and enter.
Too late. Now any response you make will separate you from your comfort, your property, your family. And you won't do that. Too late.
Parent
as someone who is confused (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't respond when they redefined the commerce clause as meaning "anything we want it to mean."
?? That clause is actually one that most conservatives dislike and think its been interpreted too widely by Liberals. This was the reasoning behind Clarance Thomas voting against the regulation of marijuana [cornell.edu]
You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-sell-to lists.
?? Export controls? Those have been around for years and years, and really aren't specific to a single party AFAIK.
Re:As someone who voted democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:As someone who voted democratic... (Score:5, Informative)
Considering "people" was Osama Bin-fucking Laden, I'd say good for him.
Parent
Re:As someone who voted democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I bitched a blue streak in numerous directions.
No. We don't need secret police, extra-national or otherwise. The doings of other nations are not our business until they are made to happen on our own soil, and then we don't need spies, we need heavy weapons. Of which we have plenty, as well as the means and will to deliver them.
No. I wasn't aware of it. I would have, though, as I consider religion and religious groups to be one of the most dangerous and poisonous - and unavoidable - elements of any nation that wants to embrace freedom. Of course, I would have insisted that without warrants issued for cause, the FBI had no right to "focus" on anyone.
Yes. I thanked the ACLU for protecting the rights of one of our minorities. Homophobia is a disease, specifically a mental disorder, one you apparently have in spades. You should seek help.
I am pro-immigration. We are all immigrants, or the children of immigrants some generations removed. My own paternal ancestors immigrated here in 1634. That doesn't make me any better - or worse - than someone who immigrated here yesterday, or across the land bridge millennia ago. I have no objection to immigration; I don't consider it a threat on any level. I do consider the blue-collar knee-jerk response to immigrants to be one of the defining characteristics of uneducated trash. I still think of "I lift my lamp beside the golden door" as something beautiful. You might want to look that up.
To the extent that the president manages to have a sex life, I think that should between the president and the president's partners. I consider any questions by the public or any arm of the government in that regard of any citizen of the country, unemployed or employed in the public or private sectors, as a blatantly unconstitutional, unethical and immoral invasion of consensual and victimless activities.
Regarding his use of cruise missiles, it is my impression that he was making very limited, very strategic attempts to precisely hit terrorists in direct response to hits they had made against us. I don't expect all such attempts to be successful; I do expect the executive, in its role of CinC, to attempt to defend the country and I much prefer a limited response such as a few cruise missiles, than I do the invasion of an entire country at the expense of American soldier's lives.
Yes, Mr. AC, they certainly do.
Parent
Not Quite (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Iraqis can vote in US elections.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. How far do you think you'll get in the army if you walk around dumping on the president? The joker was blacklisting generals who disagreed with him before the damn war even started.
Point taken, but many still believe the lie. (Score:5, Informative)
If you cling to something in the face of evidence against it...you are complicit.
I understand WHY some people willfully delude themselves into thinking the excuses for war are still valid...but that doesn't make it right.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then there were the rest of us. I am not a pacifist; I like a good war as much as the next guy. But if we're sending people to die, it damn well better be for a good reason. The case against Iraq was utter bullshit; it was a regurgitation of crap that we've known for fricking decades wrapped in a smoking 9/11 flag, and if you fell for it you should be ashamed for being so damn stupid.
Genocide among the Kurds? No, really? There were goddamn Doonesbury strips about it at the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not support the war, I felt that the evidence was flimsy but I think that you are being unfair to those that did.
You are correct that there was evidence presented. For example the aluminium tubes were presented and were real. However, there was other "evidence" (testimony) that was completely bogus: such as claiming the only purpose for those aluminium tubes could be the manufacture of weapons grade plutonium. Now in this case, you may say that any rational, thinking person should be responsib
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can completely understand why a Republican would vote for Bush over Gore in 2000. But part of what made Democrats so suicidally distraught after the November 2004 was that they were sure that nobody, not even John Kerry, could lose to Bush after the PATRIOT Act, Abu Ghraib, etc.
So I'm curious about what made you change your mind between then and now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kerry was such... a... tool. And his rhetoric since the election has me unsure if we'd really have been better off with him instead of Bush. We certainly wouldn't have a democratic congress right now. If I didn't dislike Bush so much, I would have gone 3rd party.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As someone who voted republican... (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as people rail at Bush for being daddy's boy, Kerry made me believe MUCH more that he wanted power for the sake of power, and at the time, that looked like something worse.
Since he was reelected though, it's like he misplaced his... humanity or something. He doesn't stand for what he did the first term, he doesn't stand for freedom or justice, he doesn't even seem to stand for the conservative principals that got him elected in the first place.
It was Kerry that made me vote Bush. I voted for Bush and I'm a registered Libertarian... that should tell you something...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lemme fix that for you...
Since he was reelected though, it's like he doesn't care what the voters think/believe/expect of him.
That's the rub about a president's second term, he has no incentive to keep the people happy or content,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find this to be the most sickening reality in our democracy. It's not fiscal policy vs improved healthcare, it's red states vs blue states. I find this state of affairs thoroughly disgusting.
From what I remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember 9-11, and flying the biggest damn flag I could find.
Then I remember rumors of war with Iraq, and thinking we'd never do that--it was just about the stupidest thing we could do right then.
Then I remember them doing it, anyway.
Then I remember Kerry vs. Bush, no great candidate on either side. I remember thinking it was his mess, and he should clean the damn thing up. Neither one was that great, right?
Then I remember more Diebold scandals. I still feel like they're frauds.
Then I remember Haliburton, we're paying them HOW MUCH!? As if we aren't far enough in debt.
Then I remember oil companies posting record profits while the rest of us were suffering. I didn't buy the "War for Oil" bit at first--Saddam was a bad guy--but damn if the oil companies weren't out to screw us over. I still think he got what he deserved in the end, but I don't think it was worth it in terms of the lives lost, let alone the way we went about it.
Then I remember Abu Garib... since when is America allowed to torture people!?
Then I remember hearing that they were holding American citizens and suspending habeus corpus. Isn't that illegal? If not, it sure ought to be. Even terrorists deserve a fair trial. NO government should be allowed to lock people up and throw away the key. Although I admit that I might be inclined to bend that rule if the people who originally did it were charged with treason and thrown in prison without trial...
Then I remember hearing that our own country was spying on us for no reason and suing to make sure we didn't hear about it.
Then I remember them blowing up lite brites in Boston, and getting even stupider, rather than calming down with respect to stupid security theater measures. Mind you, I've only flown twice since 9-11 and NOT because I'm scared. At this point, I'd almost rather walk than deal with airport "security" that's stupid, reactive and pointless.
Then I remember a few other things, but mostly I remember getting so pissed at the Republican party that I turned my back on it and helped vote their ass out of congress in the mid term elections.
I suspect other people may have similar stories.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As someone who voted republican... (Score:5, Interesting)
But have you given thought to the slippery slope?
Those "powers" will be in place for the next White House occupant. And if you think they'll rescind them, regardless of the political leanings, you're sorely mistaken. They will only add to the tools they have available. Pre Homeland Security, the CIA had no jurisdiction in the US. Now that Homeland Security is in place, they can simply make a request of someone at a higher level who can pose it to someone who does have the authority, then throw it back over the wall for the CIA to use.
Perhaps we need to heed Dr. Kurtzweil from the X-Files movie?
(Or should we be wearing tinfoil hats, waiting for the black helicopters?)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the electoral college system...eh. Arguments for, arguments a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If ONLY we could get a candidate that was more middle of the road. It seems that all we get lately are those on the fringe elements on both sides to choose from. The extreme right-wing has hijacked the Reps....and the Dems, well, c'mon look who they have to run the party..Dean. They seem to be run by the far left extreme.
I wish som
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Are these all part of the United States of America? Following your logic they should be referred to a Americans too? I agree, and that is why I choose to refer to sheeple from the USA as USians (USAians would look like an insult to asians I think).
But you clearly understood what I meant, isn't that what language is for?
(for brevity I
What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've often wondered - suppose they surveil a house, assume nobody's home, and break in ("legally", if not justifiably). Now, if you were home, just sleeping when they broke in, and you snuck up and attacked the person you thought was an intruder - are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? I fear that the answer would be yes...
Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is just one point brought out in TFA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Outcome 2: You manage to kill the federal agents. When they fail to report in on the outcome of the raid, more agents will be sent out to bring you down and in greater number. There is no reason to think you were act
Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
You know, with dumb ideas like this..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You know, with dumb ideas like this..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Reminds me of another pile of BS [wikipedia.org], the gist of which is that "modernizing the law" means surrendering quite a few more of your rights to the powers that be.
Parent
It may decrease security, but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It may decrease security, but (Score:5, Insightful)
You are believing the fallacy. These laws do not increase security. The government and police already have all the tools that they need. These new laws will do one thing - They will decrease my security as well as my privacy.
--jeffk++
Parent
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
IRS wants fewer tax exemptions.
Pope is Catholic.
Really, what do you expect someone in that position to want? Something to make his job harder? Not that I think he should get what he wants, I'm just not surprised he's asking for it.
The Changes to FISA that are being requested (Score:4, Informative)
Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted," NSA Director Keith Alexander told the Senate last year.
Clarify the standards the FBI and NSA must use to get court orders for basic information about calls and e-mails -- such as the number dialed, e-mail address, or time and date of the communications. Civil liberties advocates contend the change will make it too easy for the government to access this information.
Triple the life span of a FISA warrant for a non-U.S. citizen from 120 days to one year, allowing the government to monitor much longer without checking back in with a judge.
Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
Extend from 72 hours to one week the amount of time the government can conduct surveillance without a court order in emergencies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm anxious to see a furthering of the surveillance powers of this administration (or any administration, for that matter), certainly not on the terms they want.
Big Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more (Score:4, Interesting)
I've already taken my stand and they made me homeless by treating me like a third class citizen on the job and then spreading enough garbage to prevent anyone else from wanting to employ me when I left.
Parent
They're actually *asking* this time?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).
Anyway, I sure hope that they don't get expanded powers with less oversight. Maybe it's based on my predisposition to distrust the Bush administration, but they sort of earned that on their own over time. It seems to me that these guys are the reason why we have oversight. Actually, if you look at history, FISA was designed to protect us from the Bush administration (indirectly, of course). Some of Bush's cabinet members also served in President Nixon's cabinet. Many of FISA's provisions were written because of the Nixon administration's abuses against American citizens. The same guys that were screwing us over then are running the show now, and are claiming that we don't need to be protected anymore -- the same guys. I sure hope that they don't get what they're asking for.
Re:They're actually *asking* this time?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Kinda makes you wonder what they're already doing this time . . .
Parent
Freedom Isn't Free (Score:4, Insightful)
This says it all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember RICO? (Score:5, Interesting)
owner being raided at 3:30AM thought buglers were invading his home and were shot dead when they brandished a pistol in hopes of scaring off the "buglers".
The RICO act is being abused as badly as the police at the South Denver precinct abused their power, a couple decades ago. The police would roll up to a block in force, cordon it off to prevent pedestrian or car traffic, then proceed to a building in the middle of the block. There, they'd start hauling out property and putting it into the police van. Afterward, the owner was called and notified of the "theft". The property usually appeared in pawn shops later on, but no one was ever caught until someone with a movie camera filmed the whole thing from a third floor apartment across the street from the target building.
Reducing accountability for using FISA will only INCREASE its abuse. Public prosecutors like Mike Nifong, and even politicians, would use the added spy powers to further their own goals and political ambitions.
No one is safe from RICO abuse. No one will be safe from FISA abuse.
The Constitution? What's that?
Balance (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, this site is not typically representative of the general population so opinions expressed here are often skewed.
Second, what many people don't remember is that when we had the attacks on September 11, a large vocal fraction of the population screamed "Government, please do something to make us feel like this won't ever happen again."
The result of that is the government says, "Ok, that means you'll have to let us take some of your freedoms, because in order to check and see if someone might do these Bad Things, we have to be able to learn about them without them knowing that they are being examined."
Which is actually the only way you could even attempt to prevent such things from happening. The problem is that people are now starting to realize that hey, that's not really fun, but we still don't want to have some Bad People come in and mess us up.
You really have to find balance and pick your posion: you can either live with freedoms and protection from unannounced surveillance with the real risk of unwanted activity, or you can give up freedom and allow such "nasty" governmental behavior with the very small additional security that gives.
There is no practical way to have both security and freedom; they are diametrically opposed concepts by definition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
morons (Score:3, Insightful)
You won't be in office forever, and you reap what you sow.
Dismantling checks and balances (Score:3, Insightful)
The article says
McConnell wants to: _Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
He wants to change the law to allow surveillance of foreigners inside the US, as opposed to the current law which, as I understand it, only allows surveillance of communications that involve a party outside the US. The current law has an objective standard that can be verified for compliance, namely that the communications goes outside the US. By changing the law to a characterization of the person, not the communications, it becomes less objective and more subject to abuse. Who is considered a foreigner by the people who want to spy on them? Someone who has lived in another country? A person with a green card? A person with a foreign accent? It is also easier to claim a "mistake" after the fact, and after the damage is done, when the criteria is so subjective.
"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted"
Once again, he is saying we should trust him to decide before the fact, based on his own judgment, whether seeking a court order to do the surveillance is even required. But more than saying the court should decide based on looser criteria, here he is saying the he shouldn't even have to go to the court at all, based on the extremely vague criteria "considerations about the target"
_Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
One of the very few checks against abuse of government power that we have is that companies who comply with a request that is illegal may be punished for their compliance through civil liability. This responsibility makes them think twice. This proposed change removes any incentive for a company to think twice about it's own culpability. The only logical thing for a company to do if this change were made would be to rollover instantly to any request for surveillance, since it would be the path of no risk.
These changes are simply more ways to dismantle checks and balances in the system, and make it harder for anyone in power to be held accountable.
Even if you believe that the people currently in power are acting in your interests and can be trusted, what happens when the next guy takes power? Will you trust him to act in your best interests? How will you know if he is, if there are no longer any objective criteria to measure his actions against?