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.'"
when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's make it easy then. (Score:2)
Name names.
The NSA cannot "do" anything because it is nothing more than a legal fiction.
It is the people who are employed under that legal fiction that commit the crimes.
So, who will be fired for those crimes? It should be very simple to find the people who did it. And the people who authorized it. Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's the retard father leading the retard bastard monster child?
I bet the child's grandfather cries when he sees them...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't try to guess any further about how I feel. I'm only asserting what I specifically said here, and GP is a little too weird above.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network."
''Do you have a warrant?''
"Yes."
''May I see the warrant?''
"No, it's privileged."
''Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?''
"No, it's privileged."
You don't see a problem with this? How about taken with the fact that law enforcement is legally allowed to lie in the course of their duties?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network." ''Do you have a warrant?'' "Yes." ''May I see the warrant?'' "No, it's privileged." ''Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?'' "No, it's privileged."
You don't see a problem with this? How about taken with the fact that law enforcement is legally allowed to lie in the course of their duties?
Did you ignore the part where I said not to assume things that I didn't say? :(
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't ignore it; He pulled you up on your assertion that a "secret court" is a good idea by pointing out that if the court is secret then people influenced by it's decisions can't have justice. That's different from an open court (e.g. everybody knows about the court, how it works, how to question it and how to check if the court is responsible for a specific warrant) for secret decisions. Perhaps you meant something different when you said "secret court" but the only way for us to find out is to discuss the things we think you said, even if they aren't the things you meant to say.
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: (Score:2)
I wish I could make such a speech when I have the NSA at my door... and get away with it too.
You are absolutely right. But I think that those agents, when they are out of arguments, resort to brute force.
And to counter that, you would have to practically start a war with the US government. (Not the people. The government.)
So how could one solve that situation in a better way? ("You can't" is not an answer.:)
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:when I overstep the law (Score:4, Insightful)
What is treason? Do you even know what treason is in the US? Treason in the US consist of only in levying war against the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and nothing more. It's always a bad sign when someone starts off getting that basic principle wrong.
Please explain this for me. How is that possible? Or do you have some misconceived notion that wouldn't hold water with if it was at the bottom of the ocean.
Really? What decent thing is being destroyed? HMMM??? Cause I don't think you know your ass from a hole in a ground on this. Your out here trolling and making statements about others when it is clear your completely clueless. I'm betting your going to claim something like the constitution says X or the 4th amendment. Here is what you are missing. Probable cause and a warrant does not mean you need to be shown them. It means that a judge needs to be shown the probable cause and it's within reason. The warrant can be sealed and hidden from you, all you need to know is that the criteria has been met and that you are obligated to comply. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be shown the actual documents nor is there anything that states you have to be shown a warrant. A simple piece of paper in accordance with the law is sufficient as long as the cops/officers/agents/whoever stay within the limitations of the original warrant. And if you are the subject of the warrant as in the person they are searching, you don't even need to know of it until you are physically detained or being prosecuted. Nothing in the constitution says otherwise.
Please get a damn education on what your pretending to know about. It's idiots like you that make us dumasses look stupid. Anyways, be specific in what you think I got wrong, and I mean point to where you have whatever right you think I'm attempting to take from you or what exactly you think is so damn despicable. From your post so far, it seems that it's little more then your own ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Probable cause and a warrant does not mean you need to be shown them.
Oh yes it does. How about that rejoinder, Mr. Know-It-All? All you need to know is that you are wrong. How's about them apples? Don't like it? Find it in the constitution that we've got to tolerate fascist authoritarians like you. I think all decent Americans know that when government gets too opaque, it is indistinguishable from dictatorship, you know, the kind you worship. Why, because if no one knows the "original limitations", then they don't really exist. Except to the person who's seen them bu
Re: (Score:2)
What about that rejoiner Mr, know-nothing? As the object of a warrant for search of a third party, you are neither the plaintiff nor the defendant or a legal responded and your participation is only to the effect ordered by a court, not any constitutional or other legal duty. Especially when the law specifically allows for it. The warrant isn't to search you, it's to compel you to search or allow the search on the government's behalf of a third p
Re: (Score:2)
I can't list anything to show it so I'm going to call you names" as your entire justification.
Sorry about that. I thought surely you'd find "Fascist Authoritarian" an honorable appellation. My bad, there.
Here is a hint, I asked you to show where I was wrong and you were right, you rambled a legal term that you have no clue what means in a legal sense, you are wrong, you know it, and this isn't 4chan or some kiddy group where the biggest whining and insults trump the truth.
I have no idea what "your" referring to. Do you mean "rejoinder", 'cause I'm not using that as a legal term there. But I don't think that's what you meant, since "rejoinder" just isn't such a long term that I could really give it a good "ramble". So what the hell are you talking about? "Constitution?" "Government?"
What original limitations?
How the hell should I know? You brought up the "original limitations" in the w
Re: (Score:2)
And not only does it appear that you thought wrong, you most likely don't even know what fascism, authoritarianism or those two words put together actually mean. That's the problem with idiots like you. You hear a five dollar word and think your rich by grabbing it and spew it out instead of any facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Just left wondering what the hell your talking about. That happens when people makes comments with no backing in fact or reality and then use name calling not fact or anything referential as their justification.
Anyways, you have your opportunity to make the case. It's not my fault you chose not to or couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the thing though, you are in no way entitled to see a warrant unless you are being prosecuted and that is specifically part of due process which could change along with the process.
The only think you are entitled to is the knowledge that the warrant and 4th amendment requirements have been met according to the law and tort presently in place. You may actually have a little more rights to it but you would have to fight for that right. If the law says person X can provide a statement to the effect of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wind up in trouble. I hope the NSA does too
That's because you don't take it seriously. If you did, like the NSA does, you'd be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid. The government asked them to do something. Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them. It would be silly for the boss to then punish the kid for doing as told.
Tell that to the German officers who were executed for crimes against humanity, despite pleading their innocence on exactly these grounds.
This plea has since become known as the Nuremberg Defence [wikipedia.org]. To my mind, it's no more compelling today than it was over 60 years ago, when we rejected it out of hand.
In order for a democracy to remain healthy, it requires the participation of its citizens. This means more than just occasionally visiting a polling station. It means that, from time to time, we will be asked to challenge, in very practical terms, the validity of the assumptions to which we all adhere.
I do not for a second believe that the NSA management and staff involved in this operation were not acutely aware that they were circumventing the law. If they knowingly broke the law, then they should be prepared to face the consequences.
Opposing the System usually comes with a price. I don't doubt that refusing to carry out orders would be a, uh, career-limiting decision. But those who willingly participate in an immoral, unethical and illegal system should face the consequences of their choice as well.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We keep hearing of scenarios like you've captured a terrorist who's planted a nuke in Manhattan, but you can't torture him because of some stupid rules.
I think if something like that ever *did* happen, someone who really wanted to go ahead and torture the guy would take the risk of a few years in prison. And if he *wasn't* prepared to take that risk, then maybe he wasn't really so sure the victim had really planted a nuke
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point here is that someone going ahead and torturing someone under the guise of saving lives is actually doing exactly the opposite: Endangering the lives of the people they seek to protect.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who asked them. Illegal is illegal. SOMEONE broke the law. Someone made the moral/ethical decision to break the law. That person was not a kid, and should be held accountable. Also, asking someone to break the law for you is conspiracy. The boss of the country should also be held accountable. It's about time we started throwing Presidents and Prime Ministers in jail.
Oh, and routers, cars, and tube carrying trucks do not have moral/ethical decision making capabilities. They cannot be held accountable for the actions of their users or abusers.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's about time we started throwing Presidents and Prime Ministers in jail." Well, that's not going to happen. Not in Amerika, anyways.
Haven't you heard? It's not illegal if the President does it. Unfortunately, the laws have been corrupted enough that's true.
People keep assuming that the problem was that the NSA got caught "overstepping" the law. I'm sure the NSA is busy working to fix that. Getting caught, that is.
forgotten sacrafice (Score:2)
Society subjectively defines the lines that should not be crossed; apparently, this society has decided the lines for Nazi's is different from our own side.
Soldiers lose their lives for useless causes, missions, or by accident-- that is reality! It is the risk they take. One can only hope their bad luck results in something worthwhile. Most people die for nothing and some of them are soldiers.
I can not see why consequences less than death are so horrible we can not dish it out to even well intentioned grunt
Re: (Score:2)
When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid.
In this case, both the parent and the child were old enough to know that what they were doing is wrong. The only problem here is that we're only punishing the child.
When they make war against the Constitution: (Score:2)
Not "even if". It is treason. It is a direct, intentional violation of the constitution and a willful violation of the oaths of office of everybody involved. There isn't anything to be debated, because there is no counter argument possible. It is treason. Everybody involved needs to be put to death or we need to admit that America has no respect for the rule of law or for its founding principles. Personally, I don't support the death penalty, but the law demands their deaths for their willfully chosen treasonous actions, so my statement is an absolute fact.
*
Levying war against the U.S. absolutely includes willfully violating the Constitution under color of law: such actions rely on the arms of other governmental traitors committing treason against the Constitution. As they are actively levying war, unless they are prisoners, they are no more entitled to a trial before being shot than invading soldiers would be. If the acts are overt, if they are perceived by more than one person, reliant on the arms of a group and serving to attack the States or the provision
Re: (Score:2)
No joke. Read about Russell Tice from the NSA. He's breaching classification limits because he swore to uphold the Constitution of the US. He found his own agency in breach of civil rights and did the right thing.
Criminals need to be held accountable or the frequency of the crime will increase; in this case the heads that should have known better need to be held responsible for the operations and orders they produced.
Re: (Score:2)
In don't know why anyone is even bothering to contemplate 'how people will be punished' or 'what action will be taken.
We all already know exactly what is going to happen, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Nothing will happen.
They have been doing this for a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Telephone switches have had specific features to support this type of activity since at least the 1980's. The only difference, now, is that these practices are seeing the light of day.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
It's know as "Lawful Interception" . . . (Score:2)
. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception [wikipedia.org].
And there is one case where this functionality was used by someone who was not authorized to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_telephone_tapping_case_2004-2005 [wikipedia.org].
Or maybe they were authorized, but by someone who was not authorized to authorize them.
These spook stories become intentionally murky as they progress.
Obama administration (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this the same Obama administration that recently defended warrantless wiretapping [slashdot.org]?
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.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The NSA/CIA/DEA/FBI will always do what it wants. And unless you have clearance, you will know nothing about it. The things you learn about now have been going on for decades. Nothing has/can/will be done about it, and they will continue to operate as always...in secret. Is there anybody here who actually believes we voted in a new/different government? That would be very naive.
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
equally naive to think the president has any POWER over the 3letter orgs.
come on. you think a genie that powerful (the secret services, of which there are more than we can even know about) orgs will simply 'listen' to some guy who is here for what, 4 years?
they outlast presidents. our system is now ruled by a small group and those you see on TV are the figureheads.
this is not 18th century america. we have changed, radically, from what our actual roots were.
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Funny)
For the LAST TIME, C.O.N.T.R.O.L. is a fictitious organization. There IS no agent 86 and especially no agent 99.
Re: (Score:2)
No agent 99? Damn, Barbara Feldon was HOT!!!
But there IS an agent 13 . . . (Score:2)
. . . he is stationed in a RAID array in our data center. He keeps me company, when I'm doing the graveyard shift.
Re: (Score:2)
I too disagree with Obama's position on immunity for telecom companies, and sent him an e-mail expressing my concern after he voted in support of a bill to grant immunity last year.
However, I'm not particularly interested in punishment for the companies involved. I just want transparency - the kind of transparency that only a lawsuit can bring. I want the public to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and who was responsible. What's important to me is that these these people not be protected from
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Nuremberg principle should apply, really.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it depends now on how this goes through the system. Are
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the difference here is what you'd call a dragnet. The Obama position (as I understood it) is that wiretapping individuals without a warrant is acceptable under certain circumstances. Gathering communication indiscriminately is different and objectionable.
Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"When the axe came into the forest, the trees said, 'The handle is one of us.'"
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
You accept that? These things should strike terror in your bones and chill your very soul, yet you accept them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. We established what is called "Intelligence Oversight" in the 70s for exactly these reasons: Intelligence agencies have tendencies to ignore civil liberties and self-rationalize.
Whatever happened to those oversight guidelines is beyond me, but I'm sure it has a lot to do with a number of unconstitutional acts and executive orders that the SCOTUS has become too politically-aligned to do their job and undo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 cha
Re: (Score:2)
It is, and it is the same Obama who has stated that CIA operatives who were using torture won't be facing any consequences.
So I strongly doubt that NSA will be in trouble now or ever.
Re:Obama administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. A torture victim will tell his torturers anything!
For example, that 2+2=5.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yup. A torture victim will tell his torturers anything!
For example, that 2+2=5.
There... Are... Four... Lights!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. A torture victim will tell his torturers anything!
For example, that 2+2=5.
Yeeearrghhhh!!!... OK! OK! ... for sufficiently high values of 2 ... or low values of 5 ...
Re: (Score:2)
This is just unsubstantiated opinion and spout off but...
I get the feeling that part of the reason that the blanket "warrantless wiretapping is bad, mmmkay?" edict hasn't come yet is because, as of now, the Obama administration probably doesn't have a clear handle on how deep it goes, how much wiretapping we're really doing, and what examples are currently "in play." After 86? 88? days in office, I don't expect them know. Now, in a year....
For example, how many wiretaps are going right now, across all branc
Wow, I totally didn't fuckin' expect that! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, wow. They violated the law the first time, and then after the law was changed to allow that, they did it again?
I mean, holy crap, who'da thunk?
Umm... (Score:1)
Liberal Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
Who bend the laws of freedom to fit their needs.
Bush was no conservative.
In sufficient incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
"When inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them."
If such systemic negligence resulted in loss of employment, fines, and/or quality time in a federal PMITA prison, then perhaps they would take it seriously and make sure it didn't fucking happen in the first place.
Re:In sufficient incentives (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?
There should be punishments for messing up, and worse punishments for intentionally doing bad things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the threat of jail time would stop this from happening.
Re:In sufficient incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?
The big difference is that most people commit crimes for their personal benefit.
These guys are commiting crimes under some bogus rubric of protecting the country.
At best their only personal benefit is a reduction of their own time spent on the project (for which they get paid for either way).
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what we should be more interested in is this.... will we actually stop this, or put on a dog+pony show for the public and restart the same ops with new names, faces, and clearances.... Or just write new laws that you know the SCOTUS puppets won't deem unconstitutional because they are worthless and need to be publicly hung and eviscerated for corruption.
How about "mistakes" as in killing somebody? (Score:2)
What if I make the "mistake" of killing somebody? Should I get away with an "Oopsie, I admit there was a mistake made, but it's been corrected, I'm not going to kill anybody from now on"?
Too martial? Ok. Then I make the mistake of not paying for that shiny DVD player on my way out of Walmart. Think "Oopsie"'s gonna work?
Even more trivial: "Oopsie, I wasn't making available any copyrighted content. I just accidentally left my MP3 folder world-readable. But that's been fixed now" is *definitely* going to spar
We've known this for a long time (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, so what? What's to stop the next Bush/Cheney right wing douche-o-rama from doing the same thing? If there are no consequences, the next time they get a chance they'll do the same thing. We know we can't count on the FBI and NSA to police themselves, the Supreme Court is loaded with people who don't care about the Constitution, so NSA gets a slap on the wrist and new guidance. Big hairy deal. They'd do the same thing again if some sock puppet Attorney General told them it was okay.
Re:We've known this for a long time (Score:4, Insightful)
I think on this issue we can call it the current Bush/Cheney douche-o-rama. The administration announced yesterday recent that CIA personnel who relied on legal advice from the DOJ will not be investigated or prosecuted. This says that anything written by someone senior enough in DOJ will be carte blanch for torture. At least, that's the way I would read it if I had a mind to enable torture during my administration. The announcement did not mention what would happen to those giving the advice (Yoo, Addington, etc) or to the officials at the top (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.) However, the administration constantly says that they are not interested in looking backwards, only forwards.
Well, that's a relief. When will this kind of forgiveness come to the criminal justice system that the rest of us live in? I mean, crimes I committed in the past should stay in the past why dredge up all that evidence at taxpayer expense just to put me in prison? Or, in the words of Bob Loblaw, "why should you go to jail for a crime that someone else noticed?"
Good thing the gov't is unaccountable (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to ask: at this point are we really sure that the elected representatives are really in control?
Re:Good thing the gov't is unaccountable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing the gov't is unaccountable (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like given recent reports, that Obama is giving Bush-era government employees a free pass, but ordering the current administration to play by the rules. See his reversal of Bush torture policies, but unwillingness to persecute those who used those tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you're getting that. Could you cite a source please?
Here you go: Executive Order 13491, signed January 22, 2009 [whitehouse.gov].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You have failed to worship Obama. Your freedoms will be removed shortly after your guns are removed.
Really? Has that happened a single time? I'd love to know.
Re: (Score:2)
You have failed to worship Obama. Your freedoms will be removed shortly after your guns are removed.
Really? Has that happened a single time? I'd love to know.
Well, to be fair, it doesn't exactly bode well for gun owners when Obama goes to Mexico, and in a speech there, knowingly makes a completely disingenuous and deceptive statement on the percentage of U.S. guns being used by the drug cartels.
Obama stated in his speech that 90% of the guns being confiscated from the drug cartels came from the USA.
This is
Newspeak framing (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one example of newspeak framing:
"The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional."
"one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?
"said it was believed to be" -- implies that others agree and that this is the general belief. Governmentsprech for "some people say."
Just reading this frames the subject, even if you know the announcement is full of s***. And framing is 90% of the battle. (Google George Lakoff on that one)
Re: (Score:2)
"one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?
And yet the headline seems to imply Obama's being tough on government abuses. If I were more cynical, I'd say this whole NSA smackdown is a sacrificial lamb to show he's "pro-civil liberties" after all, even though his administration recently won the warrantless wiretap case.
Again, if I were cynical, I'd also say the media is eating it up. (on a related note [theonion.com])
Obama says "It's bad!" (Score:3, Interesting)
But you will notice that he didn't say it will stop!
We have secret laws and secret courts convicting you with secret evidence. Is there anyone here who STILL thinks we are doing the right thing?
Said it once, said it a thousand times... (Score:2)
Power granted is power abused.
This is what AP was talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much money NY Times paid for this story? $500k, $1m? So, remember, I will be modded down for this, but as you rail against the government for over-stomping our rights, this was the work of a paid Journalist or paid Team of Journalists who used their Journalism Major to bring home a paltry paycheck (well, paltry for those of us in the IT or engineering industry).
Stories like these make me hope that the newspaper industry finds a way to make money, because reporting like this takes money, but in a rare move by Big Content, that charged money benefits us all. (Unlike the latest Britney Spears release or Hollywood Movie).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Paying for news is like torturing for information -- the only thing you're left with at the end of the day is a pile of suspect agenda-laden chatter.
I prefer to get my news the old fashioned way, from grass-roots advocates and disaffected whisleblowers.
Re:This is what AP was talking about (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, no? There was no investigative journalism involved in this story. The Obama administration investigated the NSA. How do we know? From the press release. This is release regurgitation journalism, nothing more, and blogs are more than capable of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Highly appropriate nic for that response.
"unintentional"? (Score:2)
...and the pope is unintentionally catholic and bears unintentionally poo in woods.
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: (Score:2)
Nobody was shot for treason when they endorsed a program that raped the US Constitution.
So... you're suggesting that we rape the Constitution to protect the Constitution, eh?
I agree with you generally - I dunno who said "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention", but it's as true as true. But shouting "TREASON!" when arguing Constitutional issues makes you look silly, since it demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution. (Hint: Article III)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, what he meant was "Nobody was shot for fucking our country when they endorsed a program that raped the US Constitution.".
Re: (Score:2)
The United States is defined by the Constitution. Levying war against the United States requires an organized, armed force which attacks the United States. Therefore relying on the arms of officers of the United States to enforce violations of the Constitution is levying war against the United States. This specified as treason in Article III, along with adhering to enemies of the United States (violators of the Constitution), and giving such enemies aid and comfort. Therefore those who have relied on armed
It is easier to beg forgiveness... (Score:1, Interesting)
...than to ask permission.
I wouldn't care if I could trust them (Score:5, Informative)
No sysadmin would buy that story... (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno 'bout you, but when I accidentally turn logging on some high-volume task, I usually find out about it pretty quickly when /var/log fills up.
Now, while I doubt that the high-volume task the NSA was monitoring -- like, oh, let's say all voice and data communications in the US -- went to /var/log, the fact is that when most folks build out storage for data collection, it tends to be built in proportion to the amount of data to be collected, plus some moderate wiggle room for unexpected overages. Exactly how much wiggle room you allocate depends, of course, on how big you think a plausible overage is, but since cost is a factor, even for -- or so I presume -- organizations with black budgets, you don't build out multiple petabytes to hold a couple of gigs worth of data, for example.
So if the NSA was really only intending to capture a few, carefully targeted communications, you'd think someone would have noticed very quickly if they'd accidentally recorded more than they'd intended. For fucking years.
I'm not sure what's worse: the original crime, lying about it, or this gross insult to the intelligence of everyone listening to their transparent fictions.
Phone Sex (Score:2)
nt (Score:2)
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
Let's not forget... (Score:2)
Who was in charge of Congress last July, who is in charge of the DHS now, and who is in charge at the White House (hint: it ain't the guy who sits in the Oval Office).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls, I know.
Which is fine, because I don't even know where to start.....
Which misconception/fantasy/crack-induced-delusion do you counter first?
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: (Score:2)
Well I would say that it came a little later in this little thing we call the Bill of Rights:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
But I do like the way you think! Wish I had mod points tonight.