The Executive Order That Led To Mass Spying, As Told By NSA Alumni 180
An anonymous reader writes with this Ars piece about the executive order that is the legal basis for the U.S. government's mass spying on citizens. One thing sits at the heart of what many consider a surveillance state within the US today. The problem does not begin with political systems that discourage transparency or technologies that can intercept everyday communications without notice. Like everything else in Washington, there's a legal basis for what many believe is extreme government overreach—in this case, it's Executive Order 12333, issued in 1981. “12333 is used to target foreigners abroad, and collection happens outside the US," whistleblower John Tye, a former State Department official, told Ars recently. "My complaint is not that they’re using it to target Americans, my complaint is that the volume of incidental collection on US persons is unconstitutional.” The document, known in government circles as "twelve triple three," gives incredible leeway to intelligence agencies sweeping up vast quantities of Americans' data. That data ranges from e-mail content to Facebook messages, from Skype chats to practically anything that passes over the Internet on an incidental basis. In other words, EO 12333 protects the tangential collection of Americans' data even when Americans aren't specifically targeted—otherwise it would be forbidden under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.
Reagan is alive! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Need a big leak (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's just Facebook, then it'll be claimed as a Facebook security breach and not anything related to NSA.
You would want some sort of release of data that collates Facebook accounts to traffic offenses and something to do with cellphone data.
Haply so, but exec orders and agencies (Score:5, Insightful)
President and agencies still swear to uphold the Constitution and have no business violating it, executive orders or not.
Any orders ought to be followed to the extent the Constitution allows, not beyond, and those going beyond deserve
to be punished. That should include Presidents, though such sanctions are pretty broken.
There's no "led to" (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone involved made specific, intentional choices. It didn't happen on autopilot.
Different era (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those things existed, when the order was signed, though. And if none of the subsequent Presidents — including the current "tech-savvy" wonder — have abolished it since then (when the explosive use of computers made it truly dangerous), then is Reagan really to blame?
Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is crazy. It seems Executive Orders are non-legislation afforded the impact of law.
Executive Orders should expire after a couple of years, or when a Presidential inauguration occurs, whichever comes first. Continuation should require Congress to pass it as ACTUAL law. And changes outside of that period MUST be ACTUAL LAW!!!!!
WTF!?!?!?!?
Sorry for the caps, I RTFA and it pissed me off.
I would suggest Executive Orders be done away with completely, they are an "I am the King" method of ruling. Not leading, ruling, controlling.
YATDRA (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet Another Decent Thing Destroyed by the Reagan Administration.
I should have known.
Re:Different era (Score:5, Insightful)
He also ramped up the war on drugs, something that so many freedom-hating scumbags in our government have done. So he wasn't a good president, and he definitely didn't want "small government."
But what does that have to do with him being to blame for this specific issue?
Re:Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly (Score:5, Insightful)
If the president had to go through congress to do everything, nothing would get done.
I'd rather nothing get done than allow one man to be able to use 'I am king' orders.
Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple fact is that *most* executive orders are perfectly valid, and discontinuing them would serve no purpose.
A typical executive order simply designates procedures and requirements to be followed by people working for the Executive branch of the government. (Such as requiring that they not enter contracts with companies discriminating against employees for various reasons.)
This, however, is not a typical executive order. It is, quite simply, unconstitutional, and an explicit violation of laws written and passed by Congress. This is something that Congress, the States, and the People, *should* be getting upset about. Unfortunately, it won't happen, because roughly 50% of the country doesn't want to acknowledge anything that will make Republicans look bad, and roughly another half doesn't want to acknowledge anything that makes Democrats look bad. That leaves a few rational stragglers stuck in the middle, saying "WTF is up with you boneheaded ****wads?!!"
Re:Haply so, but exec orders and agencies (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes you should have to impeach someone to get them to follow the Constitution.
They swear to follow the constitution, so they should do that of their own volition.
Metadata isn't considered to be a part of your "effects" since it is third party information so it has nothing to do with the constitution. Collection of third party information without a warrant has been around since forever.
Bull-fucking-shit, government bootlicker. The government has absolutely no constitutional authority to conduct such surveillance on citizens without a warrant. If this sort of surveillance had been used against the founders, they would have taken steps to prevent the newly-formed government from doing the same thing, just like they did on a number of others issues that they faced at the time, and since the spirit of the constitution is what matters, that's really what's relevant.
The idea that the government can get around the constitution by letting corporations collect the data first and then getting the data from them is absolutely ludicrous. And a lot of this spying is just sapping up information as it travels to its destination. Anyone who says this is even remotely constitution is an authoritarian of the highest caliber and despises freedom.
Re:Haply so, but exec orders and agencies (Score:4, Insightful)
If this sort of surveillance had been used against the founders, they would have taken steps to prevent the newly-formed government from doing the same thing, just like they did on a number of others issues that they faced at the time, and since the spirit of the constitution is what matters, that's really what's relevant.
So what did they do against the Alien and Sedition Acts?
Re:Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Different era (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck you. You seriously believe this "job creator" myth? And all that other crap?
The only thing keeping Ronald Reagan from being the worst president in US history is W.
Re:Different era (Score:3, Insightful)
Union breaker
Amazing how putting this on the front of your list just discredited your entire post instantly. Public labor unions are a particularly nasty parasite. The union in question, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Union got overly greedy and demonstrated an epic level of hubris.
The results were not so good. Not only did they get burned permanently (the strikers weren't only fired, but banned permanently from employment with the Federal government), but they also set back all labor unions by swinging public opinion massively against labor unions in general.
Re:Executive Orders Need to Expire, and Quickly (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is EXACTLY what this executive order does. It is implementing at the Executive Branch the legislation to which it is based, namely the National Security Act of 1947 as amended. It even says so at the start of the order:
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/... [fas.org]
Also, nothing in this executive order "led to" the warrantless wiretapping as alleged in the story. In fact, there are several places in the order that state that if US citizens are involved, it MUST go through the FBI / Attorney General. Read it. You will see what I mean.
Re:Different era (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't have a union.
In the last 2 years, I've had approximately 40 hours worth of wages stolen from me by my employer, who refuses to pay them back.
My employer refuses to pay his staff for our public holidays, even though the contract and law says he must.
When I was working full time for him, he decided he didn't want to pay me overtime.
He also decided I shouldn't be taking my meal breaks, or my ten minute breaks, even though that's illegal. Gave me warnings when I did.
He then felt that I should be working for free for at least four hours a day.
Then he fired me because I basically felt apart due to exhaustion.
If I had a union none of that would have happened, and he would be facing criminal charges for the wages theft and civil charges for the lack of breaks, mandatory unpaid overtime, and so forth.
As it stands, if I do anything about it by myself, I will find myself unemployable after he puts the bad word out on me, so don't you put that "unions are evil" shit out there without seeing how the world is when they're not around.
Because in an employer-controlled world, laws don't matter.