San Jose Mercury News – Democrats scramble to expand wiretapping — Is there anyone anywhere who is against all this big brother crap?
Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are hurrying to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.
Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend what both sides agree is a problem in the current law, according to congressional aides. The administration says the National Security Agency is now required to seek court approval before eavesdropping on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail.
Some purely international telephone calls now are routed through telephone switches inside the United States, which means they can be subject to federal surveillance laws requiring search warrants for any government eavesdropping.
Both Democratic leaders and the White House have agreed that the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, should be changed to make it easier to monitor such communications. It would be the first change in the law since the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program became public in December 2005.
I guess the issue of “privacy” is a hotter issue than I thought it was? I totally support privacy in one’s private affairs==that DOES NOT include those things we do in public. Since you see evil in that, THIS must be beyond the pale?
But what is “security” and/or effective crime PREVENTION as opposed to cleaning up the bodies afterwards?
I have never bough into the notion of privacy in phone conversations–ie, they do not take place “within” the house–so to me they could even should be fair game?—but given the long history of privacy in phone calls, I won’t make an issue out of it.
Is it possible for any privacy-rights folks to outline just what kind of PREVENTATIVE measures would be appropriate???????????? or simply none at all?
This should come as a surprise to no one who has watched the police state evolve. It has accelerated in recent years, but it has been on the rise since World War II.
Heck, it started in during the Adams (John, not Quincy) administration.
Disgusting. Does no one in government care about the Constitution?
So there all you Republicans=bad Democrates=good morons. As we see here, both parties are loaded with scumbags who couldn’t care less about the Citizens, except of course at election time. Do any of you libs really think anything will change if Hillary or Obama get elected.
Another item to make my point that I keep harping on to all of those here who toe the party line(either party). There really is’nt a dimes worth of difference between the major parties. They sound different, and have different approaches, but in the end they both are working for the same goal…….goverment unchecked by checks and balances.
Does it really matter if it’s Rudy Guiliani or Hillary Clinton”s name that goverment does it’s dirty work under??? Both will have us in Iraq for years, both believe that goverment is the answer to everything, and it’s not just these 2….it’s all of the top tier candidates of both parties.
The only thing is, I can’t name anyone that would be a good President. I don’t know if there is someone who actually believes that people, not goverment should be the arbituers of right and wrong in our policies.
I’m waiting to see a classic contest between a true conservative/libertarian versus a true populist/progressive/liberal.
I should add….I’m 24….and will die of extreame old age before I do see such a contest.
While I should favor representatives at the ballot box who echo my privacy concerns, I don’t. I am not and do not register to vote due to privacy concerns. Yes, I’m serious.
There is too much personal information required to register to vote, and too much personal information required (proof of identity docs) to vote. Both data are aggregated and available for sale from the county or state readily sliced by precinct.
Since I don’t participate in the process that could effect change, I protect my privacy by willingly allowing yours to be taken away .
You’re welcome.
100 Minutes and nothing huh? Just knee jerks without analysis, or off topic rants?===Good Job one and all.
#2–So you spot this trend from John Adams forward heh? Any trend from such starting point is meaningless.===Good Job.
#3–Constitution requires court order. Thats what they are doing. What more do you want? –Absolutely no telephone surveillance at all? – – Really?===Good Job.
#4–Nothing but ill tempered free floating rant.===Good Job.
#5–Is there a dimes worth of difference? The Dems putting international phone calls subject to court order while the previous Repubs allowed warrantless domestic wiretaps. Thats more than different==its the total opposite.===Good Job.
#6–Yes its a challenge. Only a limited class can get nominated and elected. Why don’t you incorporate that “real politic” into your understanding of the world and be just a bit insightful?===Good Job.
#7–What worse goal are you thinking of? But why be specific, when you can just rant?====Good Job.
JOHN–I hope you continue to post these interesting security issues as they do raise fundamental questions, but I also look forward to, in a few weeks or months, some thoughtful post about what the dividing line should be between security and privacy. To rant about one, without defining the other, is “irresponsible.” But please, do take your time, it will be worth the effort.
Welcome to “Bipartisanship”. When the two political parties agree, things get done.
> Some purely international telephone calls now are routed through
> telephone switches inside the United States.
How does this affect US citizens? By law the NSA and CIA can only spy on people outside the US. But when a call happens to be routed through equipment in the US, yet the endpoints are OUTSIDE the US, the NSA was barred from listening in. Now NSA can spy on the 2 people who are outside the US, which is perfectly in line with the spirit and letter of the agency’s jurisdiction.
All y’all are knee-jerk nut jobs.
11–I feel your pain–but provide a link to your best review or don’t post at all? Otherwise, my critique is valid? I can see I too only have about 1-2 more rounds of this security/privacy issue before I punk out too.
Still, I’d like to know, and have asked several times, what is wrong with certain security efforts and all that I get back is rants and “its obvious” — so its kinda hard to have an exchange of ideas and “maybe” gain an idea and modify my own views?
I keep asking. Yours is the most reasonable response so far although Mr Dvorak made a good start last week.
Near the end here”
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?m=20070725
Security vs Privacy more specifically debated somewhat here:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=12818#comments
My view==if you are IN PUBLIC==no privacy expectation is reasonable. I want our government to be COMPETENT in trying to prevent crime rather than just respond after the deeds are done.
In fact, i would support many more “passive” surviellance than most would approve==eg–everyone gets fingerprinted and dna’d==why ever not?
Abuse and misuse of any such info is a crime and should be prosecuted. Stop making policies based on Hollywood Scenarios.
I’ve been a Libertarian for many years. They are the only party that is anti-Fascist.
There will be ice skating in hell tonight. I agree with #12, TC. And I agree with all the points he made.
Damn, don’t you people ever read the articles?
YEAH!!! Pass all that shit through before BushCo leaves the White house, thats a great way to fuck the american people over
this is just dumb – I cant thing of another word that accurately describes it
Fusion,
I think there wouldn’t be a concern about this, if it weren’t for our over-riding fear that Bush will make a hash of it and Cheney can’t be trusted to actually obey the law, especially, when he’s got Gonzalez to back him up.
So, there’s an ill-feeling that the law will be abused and that the Dems are helping Bush do it. We elected them to stop Bush, not abet him.
>>Is it possible for any privacy-rights folks to outline just what
>>kind of PREVENTATIVE measures would be
>>appropriate????????????
Uhhh, how about if they just followed the law? That is, get a warrant first, and if there’s no time for that, wiretap to their hearts’ content, then get a warrant AFTERWARDs. You know, so that there’s some documentation somewhere (anywhere) that there was SOME reason to be doing the wiretapping in the first place.
>>By law the NSA and CIA can only spy on people outside the US.
“By law”? “BY LAW”?? Since when does the law govern the actions of Dumbya’s Band of Merry Pranksters?
“BY LAW”??? Oh, that’s rich!
#15 ho ho ho. That’s pretty funny. Let’s imagine we have a party in power whose only purpose is “common defense” (read: big military) and that glorifies the corporation. Now, that couldn’t ever conceivable become fascist, could it? Go hit yourself over the head, please.
#15, Timbo,
Libertarian is just another way of saying
“I got mine, phuk you”.
*
#18, Ron
I hear what you are saying but you don’t understand what this is about.
Currently our international spy agencies may only intercept international communications if they happen outside the US. If they happen inside the US they need a warrant and the CIA is currently prohibited from any involvement.
This change will allow the CIA and NSA to intercept INTERNATIONAL communications between INTERNATIONAL end points that merely are switched only in the US and to do it without a warrant. If one end of that communication starts or stops in the US they still need a warrant.
If a communication is intercepted without a warrant then the NSA must apply for a warrant from FISA within 72 hours. This still allows the CIA, NSA, and FBI to keeps tabs on a suspects activities when there is a reasonable suspicion and the suspect changes tactics suddenly.
Trust me, there are bad guys out there. I want our government to keep tabs on them. This legislation has nothing to do with domestic spying and Bush wiretapping Americans without a warrant.
here’s why you should fear random wiretaps
when private industry makes a mistake about who i am i get annoying phone calls from collection agencies looking for the person who used to own the phone number that became my fax line
that’s annoying
when government makes a mistake i am going to be tortured and imprisoned for years, and once classified an enemy combatant, my rights as a citizen will be stripped and i will be powerless to stop it and may never see my wife or kids again
that’s really annoying
ANY QUESTIONS ????
“Is there anyone anywhere who is against all this big brother crap?”
No, not in Washington. Such people cannot get elected any more.
But, that’s not what the article was about. It was about eaves dropping on calls that pass through the US.
I don’t think such calls should be monitored, but not out of any US privacy concerns.