Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Hey Gbaji, remember the FISA debate?Follow

#1 Apr 16 2009 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Full circle, buddy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?em

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.


Whether intentional or not, the law opened certain loopholes that lead to this, the exact kind of loopholes I argued against several times.

Quote:
After a contentious three-year debate that was set off by the disclosure in 2005 of the program of wiretapping without warrants that President George W. Bush approved after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress gave the N.S.A. broad new authority to collect, without court-approved warrants, vast streams of international phone and e-mail traffic as it passed through American telecommunications gateways. The targets of the eavesdropping had to be “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States. Under the new legislation, however, the N.S.A. still needed court approval to monitor the purely domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion.

In recent weeks, the eavesdropping agency notified members of the Congressional intelligence committees that it had encountered operational and legal problems in complying with the new wiretapping law, Congressional officials said.

Officials would not discuss details of the overcollection problem because it involves classified intelligence-gathering techniques. But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.


Exactly the kind of argument I proposed. Funny, eh?
#2 Apr 16 2009 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Like an elephant, Brownduck never forgets.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#3 Apr 16 2009 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Are you sure it was gbaji you were arguing with and not me? Or did this come up after you finally realized that I don't fear my government and that's why we see differently on these issues?

I ask, because this looks like something you and I would've discussed before.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4 Apr 16 2009 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yeah. Most of my arguments on the issue involved phone taps, not email. I do recall a thread about the NSA putting taps on international email junction points inside the US. IIRC (it's been awhile) I said that the biggest problems would be technical, not due to some malicious desire to spy on American's email.

Someone misconfigures a router and sends packets on a loop outside the US instead of along a purely domestic path, thus getting picked up and sorted by an NSA sniffer. It can happen. I'm not particularly alarmed. Honestly, the biggest issue here is the additional cost due to the overhead of having to deal with more data than they should when searching for the emails going to/from targets they actually want to read.

And the article (if you read past the first 10 paragraphs or so) seems to confirm that's basically what's happened. Oh. That and the alarmist (omgz!) bit about attempting to tap a member of congress when outside the US and meeting with someone who was already under surveillance. I'm going to re-interpret that bit for you. They already had taps on this guy. US Congressman starts talking to him on the phone and arranging to meet with him. Alarm bells start going off. Internal discussion starts about whether to follow the normal procedure (tap anyone outside the US in communication with a current tap target) or to make an exception in this case due to the person involved. They kick it upstairs and decision is made to break normal protocol in this case.


It should be reported as the tapping being suspended as a special case when a US congressman was involved, but this is the NY Times after all. It's just a whole lot juicier to report it the other way around...

Edited, Apr 16th 2009 1:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Apr 20 2009 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
**
559 posts
Why is it that every time we conduct an internal investigation on government agencies using patriot act powers we find that they have been abusing our civil liberties? This same thing happened with the FBI (according to a 2007 Justice Dept report,) they illegally spied on citizens.

Could it be that people will abuse the power they are given? Maybe we need checks and balances within our government?
#6 Apr 20 2009 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
I think they need a warrant. Every time. Yes, I'm sure it is time consuming. Civil rights are just that important. Perhaps they would need more funds to file all those warrants. That said, I think congress, in allowing ongoing warrentless wiretapping, is reflecting the majority opinion within the US.
#7 Apr 20 2009 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Warchief Annabella wrote:
Like an elephant, Brownduck never forgets.


Stubbs is fat.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#8 Apr 20 2009 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Iamadam the Shady wrote:
Warchief Annabella wrote:
Like an elephant, Brownduck never forgets.


Stubbs is fat.


In my best Ben Stein voice:

"How dreadfully unoriginal."
#9 Apr 20 2009 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Iamadam the Shady wrote:
Warchief Annabella wrote:
Like an elephant, Brownduck never forgets.


Stubbs is fat.


In my best Ben Stein voice:

"How dreadfully unoriginal."
Should've let Turin post that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#10 Apr 20 2009 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
I think they need a warrant. Every time.


Every time what?

Every time the NSA plants a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria? Really? While there are legitimate concerns to address regarding privacy of US citizens, one of the problems with this issue is that legitimate foreign surveillance was lumped in the "warrantless wiretaps" category in the publics eye.

Quote:
Yes, I'm sure it is time consuming. Civil rights are just that important. Perhaps they would need more funds to file all those warrants. That said, I think congress, in allowing ongoing warrentless wiretapping, is reflecting the majority opinion within the US.


Again. You need to be very very specific that you're talking about warrantless wiretapping of US citizens/persons or conversations in which both endpoints are on US soil. Because those are the types of wiretaps which require warrants and it's illegal if they don't get one. At the risk of repeating myself the "outrage" on this was largely fabricated by using the word "warrantless" in two different contexts, and allowing the public to assume that the legal warrantless wiretaps were in fact illegal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Apr 21 2009 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
So lemme get this straight: The evil warmonger Boosh implemented weaker controls governing governmental wiretaps and you guys excoriated him for it. Here we are almost 100 days into the Glorious and Bright New Age of Obama and such heinious and despicable acts of Big Brother listening in to your conversations haven't been stopped?!?

Change you can believe in, indeed. Yes you can!

Totem
#12 Apr 21 2009 at 7:22 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
I think they need a warrant. Every time.


Every time what?

Every time the NSA plants a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria? Really?


Yes. Really. It's that important. Some may wish to sell your freedom for a false sense of security. I do not. I take what generations of Americans have fought and died to protect very seriously.
#13 Apr 21 2009 at 7:57 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
I think they need a warrant. Every time.


Every time what?

Every time the NSA plants a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria? Really?


Are you suggesting that planting a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria is something we should allow any tom, **** or harry cia agent to do without careful scrutiny as to it's necessity?

Would you respect another nation that allowed its security personnel to plant taps/cameras to record you, me, our leaders, the hawt lil girl next door, our technogeeks or anyone else they wanted without proper permissions gained by detailed justification?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Apr 21 2009 at 1:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
I think they need a warrant. Every time.


Every time what?

Every time the NSA plants a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria? Really?


Yes. Really. It's that important. Some may wish to sell your freedom for a false sense of security. I do not. I take what generations of Americans have fought and died to protect very seriously.


What freedom are *you* losing here?

I get the whole Ben Franklin quote thing, but it's a matter of degrees. The government must provide some level of protection from foreign threats, or it ultimately serves no purpose at all. Insisting that anytime our government takes any action to protect us is a violation of our liberties is *not* what Ben meant. In fact, his use of the word "safety" in the quote was not restricted to the use of the military, but was more about political uses of government power and is much much more applicable to the creation of our modern welfare state than any use of our military or intelligence agencies.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Apr 21 2009 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
I think they need a warrant. Every time.


Every time what?

Every time the NSA plants a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria? Really?


Are you suggesting that planting a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria is something we should allow any tom, **** or harry cia agent to do without careful scrutiny as to it's necessity?


False dilemma. We're talking purely about whether FISA court warrants are required. It's not "all or nothing". Careful scrutiny can (and does) occur outside of that one body. The executive branch of the government has the power to make determinations about national security and are properly the correct organization to make decisions with regard to when, where, and whom we may spy on outside the US.


The purpose of FISA was to codify the boundary between legitimate foreign surveillance and abuses of the rights of US citizens in the name of "national security". Insisting that cases that fall well outside the second category are also somehow violation of our rights is silly.

If you believe otherwise you are welcome to lobby your representatives in congress to change the law. But the law as written has a very specific set of guidelines in terms of which things require warrants and which don't. You can argue that we *should* require warrants for all foreign wiretaps if you want, but you can't argue that we're violating the law by conducting foreign wiretaps without such warrants, which was essentially what many people were (and still are) arguing.

Quote:
Would you respect another nation that allowed its security personnel to plant taps/cameras to record you, me, our leaders, the hawt lil girl next door, our technogeeks or anyone else they wanted without proper permissions gained by detailed justification?


First off. They have "proper permission". That's what I've tried to explain the last half dozen times this subject has come up. You're arguing what you'd like, not what the law says.

As to whether we should, that's properly a foreign policy matter though. Again. It's not all or nothing. Not all legal actions are the right things to do. Just because we think it's wrong to spy on our allies does not mean that it's illegal to do so. And certainly it has to be legal so that we can spy on our enemies, right? Which is exactly what the original NSA program which spawned this entire political issue was designed to do.

Brining in red herrings about whether other nations would respect us doesn't address the issue. All nations conduct espionage. I know you'd like to believe we live in a world of duckies and bunnies where everyone just trusts eachother all the time, but that's not how the real world works. I'm quite certain that our closest allies spy on us all the time. It would be foolish to assume that they aren't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Apr 21 2009 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Yeah. Most of my arguments on the issue involved phone taps, not email.


False. I particularly recall your argument regarding how infeasible it would be for NSA to monitor most internet traffic because of the amount of data in question. I recall this because I laughed for nearly an hour over your idea of the current state of sigint gathering capabilities at Ft Meade.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Apr 21 2009 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Yeah. Most of my arguments on the issue involved phone taps, not email.


False. I particularly recall your argument regarding how infeasible it would be for NSA to monitor most internet traffic because of the amount of data in question. I recall this because I laughed for nearly an hour over your idea of the current state of sigint gathering capabilities at Ft Meade.


There's a difference between gathering and monitoring information. That's your first hint as to where you went awry. If anyone is actually capturing every single packet on the internet entering or leaving US data networks and transmitting that data to a central location for storage and analysis than they are wasting an absolutely massive amount of resources. I was speaking about how such a program would likely be run, not how an idiot would do things if he had an unlimited budget to support his stupidity.

I'll also point out that this does not in any way refute my assertion that "most" of my arguments about FISA have revolved around the issue of phone taps. We've had probably a dozen of those over the last 6 years or so, whereas I believe there was maybe one or two dealing specifically with the whole issue of the government placing tap hookups on data trunks going in/out of the country.


I'll finally point out that those are two completely different programs. The largest public issue involving FISA was about the NSA wiretap programs operating in the middle east starting about 6 years ago. The other issues involving internet data tracking programs are much more recent and have never gained nearly as much public interest or outrage.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Apr 22 2009 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Yeah. Most of my arguments on the issue involved phone taps, not email.


False. I particularly recall your argument regarding how infeasible it would be for NSA to monitor most internet traffic because of the amount of data in question. I recall this because I laughed for nearly an hour over your idea of the current state of sigint gathering capabilities at Ft Meade.


There's a difference between gathering and monitoring information. That's your first hint as to where you went awry. If anyone is actually capturing every single packet on the internet entering or leaving US data networks and transmitting that data to a central location for storage and analysis than they are wasting an absolutely massive amount of resources. I was speaking about how such a program would likely be run, not how an idiot would do things if he had an unlimited budget to support his stupidity.

I'll also point out that this does not in any way refute my assertion that "most" of my arguments about FISA have revolved around the issue of phone taps. We've had probably a dozen of those over the last 6 years or so, whereas I believe there was maybe one or two dealing specifically with the whole issue of the government placing tap hookups on data trunks going in/out of the country.


I'll finally point out that those are two completely different programs. The largest public issue involving FISA was about the NSA wiretap programs operating in the middle east starting about 6 years ago. The other issues involving internet data tracking programs are much more recent and have never gained nearly as much public interest or outrage.


blah blah ******* blah.


Your argument is fairly irrelevant at this point. I said the changes to the law would be abused. They have been. Intent is not the issue, nor is the type of communication being intercepted. The law was poorly authored and the technology not up to par. It was a mistake and should be reversed.
#19 Apr 22 2009 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
I think they need a warrant. Every time.


Every time what?

Every time the NSA plants a wiretap in a phone trunk in Syria? Really?


Yes. Really. It's that important. Some may wish to sell your freedom for a false sense of security. I do not. I take what generations of Americans have fought and died to protect very seriously.


What freedom are *you* losing here?



If you can't figure that out on your own...

Quote:
I get the whole Ben Franklin quote thing, but it's a matter of degrees. The government must provide some level of protection from foreign threats, or it ultimately serves no purpose at all.


This contradicts what you just implied. Either we're NOT loosing any freedom (or, if I wish to be generous to your position: at least not any significant freedoms - as deemed so by you?), or it is a matter of degrees.

To me, there is no choice.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This really means everyone. Yes, of course we can wiretap. And of course that needs judicial oversight. That is exactly what the FISA court is set up to do.
#20 Apr 22 2009 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Your argument is fairly irrelevant at this point. I said the changes to the law would be abused. They have been. Intent is not the issue, nor is the type of communication being intercepted. The law was poorly authored and the technology not up to par. It was a mistake and should be reversed.


You're going to need to be a whole lot more specific about exactly what change to FISA you are referring to. Because the applicable change wasn't really that significant, and was arguably necessary given changes in technology. Saying it wasn't up to par with technology is silly given that it was an attempt to update the legal code to keep up with new technology.

The change affecting internet data captures involved the use of taps physically located inside the US when the target of the tap is *not* inside the US. This change was arguably necessary because back in the 70s, packet and route data networks did not exist. Electronic information just flowed real time along a set of switched wires and networks tended to be purely hierarchical in design. With packet based networks, it's quite possible to route packets from country A to country B by way of an internet trunkline located in San Fransisco.


Additionally, with the advent of the internet and remote access and processing, a terrorist from Country A could communicate with a terrorist in Country B by posting messages between two computer physically located inside the US. In the 70s it was impossible for two people in two foreign countries to send electronic messages back and forth without a tap located near them in their own countries picking it up (or at least being able to). Today, it's quite possible for that to happen. And given the way the original FISA regulations were set up, it would be a very sensible way to do things for exactly the reason that you'd decrease the likelihood of being tapped.


Under the changes it is still illegal for the government to conduct wiretaps on US persons without a warrant, just as it was before the changes. Their ability to "abuse" this is no greater either. The NSA could just as easily have "accidentally" intercepted your email in 1998 as it could in 2008. You're just more aware of the issue today due to the massive media coverage about the issue.


Any organization can abuse the law by breaking it. I'm not sure how this changes that dynamic. I suspect you were operating under a false sense of security from abuse before and now you are aware that you aren't as protected as you were. Ignorance didn't make you safer though, did it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Apr 22 2009 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I was speaking about how such a program would likely be run, not how an idiot would do things if he had an unlimited budget to support his stupidity.

False.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Apr 22 2009 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:


What freedom are *you* losing here?



If you can't figure that out on your own...


I want you to list the freedoms you had that you don't now as a result of this program. Cause if you can't name them...

Quote:
Quote:
I get the whole Ben Franklin quote thing, but it's a matter of degrees. The government must provide some level of protection from foreign threats, or it ultimately serves no purpose at all.


This contradicts what you just implied. Either we're NOT loosing any freedom (or, if I wish to be generous to your position: at least not any significant freedoms - as deemed so by you?), or it is a matter of degrees.


I said it was a matter of degrees. Is there an echo in here? Lol...

Without some set of rules and protections, our liberty is always subject to the first enemy who comes along to take them away. It's an inherent assumption in the principle of liberalism that the "state" must infringe some liberties (in the form of some authority and power over us) in order to protect the remainder.

I'm simply aware of this and not foolish enough to argue that our government should never under any circumstances take any act which may infringe on our freedom. Cause that's silly. The key words are "necessary" and "degrees". To what degree is the government infringing on us, and is that infringement necessary to protect other liberties?


The Franklin quote is often misused by those who don't really understand that concept. The state infringes our liberties all the time. It's what governments do. Governments create laws. All laws infringe liberties. They can't pass a law letting you do something. They can only pass laws restricting what you can do. If you stop and think about this, you'll realize what I'm talking about.

It is always about how much of an infringement is going on, and what we get in return. To even think that some actions don't infringe and others do, and try to argue for some and against others on that ground means you have failed to grasp how governments work.


Quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This really means everyone. Yes, of course we can wiretap. And of course that needs judicial oversight. That is exactly what the FISA court is set up to do.



Yes. But you don't get to selectively apply those concepts, do you? If you oppose the government intruding on your life (or on others) in the form of conducting wiretaps designed to protect the citizens of the country from terrorist attack, and you oppose it purely on the grounds that it's an infringement, then why not oppose other actions the government takes? Why not say that all our laws are wrong? After all, we incarcerate criminals, right? But to capture them the police have to question people, which imposes on them. They have to patrol around looking for criminal activity, which means they are also "spying" on us (those evil guys in the black and white cars driving around with their radar guns and whatnot). Worse, they make us pay their salaries to do it, the cost of their cars and radar guns, and the cost for the prisons they stick those they arrest and convict.


That's a whole hell of a lot more infringement on you every single day, yet I don't see you complaining about it. I'm simply suggesting that you are selectively applying an absolutist approach to liberty and that this approach becomes fallacious exactly because your criteria isn't based on an assessment of the infringement versus the benefit, but some other politically motivated objective.


Which is a really stupid way to decide which freedoms we should protect and which we shouldn't, if you stop and think about it...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Apr 22 2009 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Your argument is fairly irrelevant at this point. I said the changes to the law would be abused. They have been. Intent is not the issue, nor is the type of communication being intercepted. The law was poorly authored and the technology not up to par. It was a mistake and should be reversed.


You're going to need to be a whole lot more specific about exactly what change to FISA you are referring to.


How about the precise change that eliminated the need for a warrant for wiretapping so long as one of the participants could be "reasonably" believed to be outside the U.S. My entire argument in our last great debate on this change was that it is nearly impossible to make this determination "reasonably" where internet communications are concerned. That argument still stands, even by the NSA's own admission at this point.

May I remind you:

The ******* story linked in the OP wrote:
But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.


Quote:
Under the changes it is still illegal for the government to conduct wiretaps on US persons without a warrant.


No, if they can prove they had "reason to believe" that your chat friend BillyKneeGrabber was located in sweden, they can tap your communications without a warrant. This was the extension of the law granted under Bush in 2007 and the primary change I've argued against.

#24 Apr 22 2009 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're going to need to be a whole lot more specific about exactly what change to FISA you are referring to.


How about the precise change that eliminated the need for a warrant for wiretapping so long as one of the participants could be "reasonably" believed to be outside the U.S.


Let's be more specific. In the broadest terms, the FISA code has *always* required warrants in the case where both endpoints are within the US. Which means that one or both endpoints must be outside the US. How exactly do you think they ever made that determination? Yup. They were "reasonably sure" that one or both of the endpoints were outside the US, because the physical wires lead outside the US. Kinda obvious, but I mention it just so it's clear that this isn't some new addition in the broadest sense.

More specifically, this exact change applied to the "wiretaps in which the tapping equipment is located inside the US". This is a change, but absolutely reflects technological changes. In the 1970s, any communication involving someone outside the US could be tapped via wiretapping equipment located outside the US. That is simply not true anymore, as I stated earlier. Two people in foreign countries can communicate by passing messages between host computers or message services located inside the US. And that's before getting into the gray areas of cell phone and satellite communications in which the servers controlling the communications can only be accessed physically inside the US, but the conversations actually occur outside the US.


It's important to recognize that this is only a change in that it allows the physical wiretapping equipment to be located on US soil, whereas previously that was not allowed. There are numerous technical reasons why this is not only reasonable, but necessary given the changes in telecommunications over the last 30 years.

Quote:
My entire argument in our last great debate on this change was that it is nearly impossible to make this determination "reasonably" where internet communications are concerned. That argument still stands, even by the NSA's own admission at this point.


Of course it's possible. But it's also possible to make mistakes. Hence, the "reasonably sure" language. It's there specifically so as not to hamper intelligence gathering to the point where it can't operate. In an age where people use disposable phones which are changed every week and where free and anonymous email and messaging services are available, you simply cannot track bad guys by assuming that they're going to stay in one place, using one method of communication and let you catch up to them by getting warrants for each one. Whatever method you use has to work in near real-time, or it's pretty worthless.


What alternative do you propose?

Quote:
May I remind you:

The @#%^ing story linked in the OP wrote:
But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.


Yeah. Technical problems. Most likely meaning that they weren't able to screen out enough of the "chatter" to meet some benchmark they were aiming for.


Look. There are many things in the world I'm worried about. Heck. There are many things I worry about that my own government might be doing that I don't like, or that I believe infringe my freedom. The potential that in the process of tracking down international communications of terrorists they might inadvertently pick up one of my calls or messages is pretty well far down the list of those things.

Quote:
Quote:
Under the changes it is still illegal for the government to conduct wiretaps on US persons without a warrant.


No, if they can prove they had "reason to believe" that your chat friend BillyKneeGrabber was located in sweden, they can tap your communications without a warrant. This was the extension of the law granted under Bush in 2007 and the primary change I've argued against.


You're mixing "conducting wiretaps" with "inadvertently grabbing your signals". One is illegal. The other is a mistake. Oh. And you're wrong. They have *always* been able to tap a conversation between you and BillyKneeGrabber in Sweden. The only restriction was that the target of the tap is the guy in Sweden, and not you. You're apparently confused by the fact that communications have at least two endpoints. The objective of FISA is to prohibit taps who's purpose is to pick up conversations of someone in the US. If someone in the US communicates with someone outside the US that they are tapping, they are not required to stop tapping. That is now and has always been completely legal for them to continue conducting that tap. That has not changed. Just because you apparently weren't aware that if you called some guy in a foreign country, and the NSA happens to be tapping phone calls going to his phone, they can legally tap you and don't need any kind of warrant, does not change the fact that you have likely lived your entire life with this potential possibility.

Abuse and mistakes are not the same. When you find evidence that the NSA is using the fact that they're able to accidentally pick up extra information to put forth some nefarious plot, you go ahead and let me know. Until then, I'll be far more worried about how I'm going to be taxed to hell and back to pay for the social programs my government wants to ram down my throat, and whether or not I'm going to be drafted into some new civilian service program, or whether or not I'm going to be labeled as an extremist and tracked by the FBI.


Cause those are really much much more of a concern to me...

Edited, Apr 22nd 2009 10:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Apr 22 2009 at 9:49 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
What alternative do you propose?


What I've always proposed. Complete and unconditional oversight. Period. There's no excuse not to have it, especially as it becomes easier to invade the privacy of others. We should be getting more strict about such things, not less. You may believe the propaganda about national security being shoved down your throat, but I still value my civil liberties over anything the CIA or the NSA will ever do to protect me. I'd rather take up arms and personally defend my freedom than give some John Doe in Washington, Langley, or anywhere else the right to intercept any communications of mine without reasonable cause and judicial authority to do so.


#26 Apr 22 2009 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"Abuse and mistakes are not the same. When you find evidence that the NSA is using the fact that they're able to accidentally pick up extra information to put forth some nefarious plot, you go ahead and let me know. Until then, I'll be far more worried about how I'm going to be taxed to hell and back to pay for the social programs my government wants to ram down my throat..." --gbaji

That calls for a big ol' RACK. My sentiments precisely, G.

Totem
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 269 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)