NSA Overstepped the Law On Wiretaps 164
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that legal and operational problems surrounding the NSA's surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees, and a secret national security court, and that the NSA had been engaged in 'overcollection' of domestic communications of Americans. The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional. The Justice Department has acknowledged that there had been problems with the NSA surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the intelligence community, did not address specific aspects of the surveillance problems, but said in a statement that 'when inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them.' The intelligence officials said the problems had grown out of changes enacted by Congress last July to the law that regulates the government's wiretapping powers, as well as the challenges posed by enacting a new framework for collecting intelligence on terrorism and spying suspects. Joe Klein at Time Magazine says the bad news is that 'the NSA apparently has been overstepping the law,' but the good news is that 'one of the safeguards in the [FISA Reform] law is a review procedure that seems to have the ability to catch the NSA when it's overstepping — and that the illegal activities have been exposed, and quickly.'"
Obama administration (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this the same Obama administration that recently defended warrantless wiretapping [slashdot.org]?
Good thing the gov't is unaccountable (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's administration has claimed that companies who wrongly cooperated with the government in the warrantless wiretapping program should not be open to lawsuits.
While I, and many others, may not agree with that stance, it does not mean that he's going to let the NSA do whatever the hell they want.
At least, not necessarily. We'll see if anything comes of this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, I just have to snipe. (Score:5, Informative)
The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
My 10 year old daughter uses that excuse. 'I didn't mean to throw cookie dough at my friend.
'For 10 minutes.'
Joe Klein at Time Magazine says the bad news is that 'the NSA apparently has been overstepping the law,' but the good news is that 'one of the safeguards in the [FISA Reform] law is a review procedure that seems to have the ability to catch the NSA when it's overstepping -- and that the illegal activities have been exposed, and quickly.'"
Yeah, quickly. They were exposed almost 5 years [1] [salon.com] ago. An entire term of office for the US chief executive, for those of you keeping score. The FISA Reform act was not required to expose the activity. It was required to stop the activity. Maybe Time Magazine doesn't remember history very well, but we do. And we prefer not to implicitly lie with our choice of verb.
Nor do we believe for a moment that the activity actually was stopped. Secret (kangaroo) courts and secret meetings and the utterly worthless assurances of the US Justice Department. Of course it's still on-going. I don't even have to wear a tin-foil hat to proclaim that. I don't sound the least bit nutty, saying that, because even major media reported the story, in detail, for months, and nobody cared.
You think they're going to stop now? Of course they're not. Nobody was shot for treason when they endorsed a program that raped the US Constitution. Nobody was sent to jail when they designed a spying program that raped the US Constitution. Nobody lost their job when they implemented a surveillance program that raped the US Constitution. Nobody had their pay docked for listening to the phone calls of random citizens. Nobody got their knuckles rapped with a ruler for reading the email of random citizens. No, instead, they got condemned in the press. Oooooooo. The horror.
They got away with it. Completely and utterly and totally. So why would they stop? When there are no negative consequences whatsoever, there's no reason at all to stop.
The saddest part of all is that it can not be stopped. If Congress chose to do something about it, the members who led the effort would be pilloried as partisan and would lose reelection. Daring to stand on principle would result in losing their job, because that's what the voters think is right.
Oh my people...
Re:Quit making up rights. (Score:1, Informative)
The telephone lines are not controlled by the US government, but are in fact controlled by individual companies that must abide by certain laws (look up "common carrier" laws).
If a cop hears you on the street talking about illegal activities, then that is a more complex issue. What if you're relaying a story told by someone else, or something you read, or a work of fiction, or the plot to your novel, or describing your exploits in Grand Theft Auto? There needs to be more proof.
Second, wiretaps by federal agencies require warrants that specifically outline the actions to be taken, the purpose of the wiretap, the limitations of data collection, and the persons involved. Phone recording by individuals is defined by state laws. In some states, only one party in the conversation needs to know about the recording. In some states, such as California, both parties must consent. A 3rd party that is tapping the line cannot give consent, as they are not the intended sender or recipient.
Third, the government can police the roads and "get you" for doing "illegal things"? What do you mean by that, exactly? What is a "road related" illegal thing?
You're a troll as evidenced by your last sentence, anyway. I'm bored so I decided to reply in case someone decides to make similar idiotic arguments seriously.
It's called the Fourth ammendment (Score:1, Informative)
Since my phone is in my home I have every right to privacy to talk to whom I please in there home without having the gooberment listen in.
I wouldn't care if I could trust them (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quit making up rights. (Score:5, Informative)
When were U.S. citizens given rights to privacy over a public infrastructure such as phone lines
Katz vs. United States [wikipedia.org], which established that private telephone calls are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it doesn't work that way. It's more like,
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network."
"Do you have a warrant?"
"We have the equivilent rm225 (whatever) form showing a proper warrant was issued and there is legal authority backing this action."
"May I see the warrant?"
"No, it's privileged. But for your records, this is a copy of the legal authorization we are serving you with. IF there are any questions, use the profile number in the corner."
"Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?"
"No, it's privileged. but I can point you to a judge who will assure you that this legal authorization is legitimate. and you are required by law to comply with it. BTW talk to no one about this or who we are targeting."
When they serve a "secrete warrant", they don't leave you dumbfounded with a bunch of questions about if they were actually cops or whatever. They give you a writ saying they have the legal authority based on some law/order to do X or Y. You can't talk about them doing either except with your legal council or any employees who may need to assist but it needs to be confidential with them under the same gag orders.
Now the authorization papers will have enough information that can't be used to determine anything about the case or real warrant but enough information to associate the actions with the officers and for the appropriate clearance level employee to verify the situation without disclosing anything.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:4, Informative)
I think the first thing you need to do is list what you think is wrong with the ideas then actually determine the legalities of it.
In the US, we work from the poisoned fruit doctrine (fruit of the poisonous tree) [wikipedia.org]. This means that any ill gotten information poisons any information stemming from that and as such, can't be used against you in a prosecution. So at least if you are doing something wrong and they break the law to catch you in this way, your not going to have a lot of evidence against you.
However, I think you and Darby are both wrong in what is required.
Re:Obama administration (Score:3, Informative)
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is part of the judicial branch. Under the law from 1978, intelligence gatherers can apply for a warrant from this court the normal way, or they can do the wiretap without one and then they have 72 hours in which to obtain the warrant or else destroy whatever they have and also it's inadmissable. This is for surveillance where one party is a US person and the other party is known to be a foreign national.
On the contrary, the FISA amendments act from last year changes this. The time period is now 7 days, and all you need now is a letter from the AG or his designee. That's a way to keep oversight of executive branch in house and totalitarian.
These are fine distinctions I know.