NSA Data Mining Much Larger Than Reported

silassewell writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that the "volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged." The NSA gained the cooperation of many American telecommunication companies after 9/11 to access streams of communication, both domestic and international, as a part of a presidentially approved program to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity.

Sad but true

[anagama (611277)]

I Soviet America, the phone listens to you.

Soviet phone listening to you?

[shanen (462549)]

That's not a funny joke, and it isn't limited to any particular country. The modification to make your telephone into a bugging device is actually quite trivial. In the absence of legal constraint, it is probably more reasonable to assume those techniques are being used as well.

However, as regards the main topic, I've always worked from the premise that powers are abused. Therefore, I've always assumed that the power to tap email is probably being widely abused, and not just by the NSA. It's not the case that I'm doing anything of legitimate interest to legal authorities, but simply that I have an attitude of questioning authority, and they don't appreciate that.

However, if I had any actual reason to be paranoid, then the situation would be very different, and I would obviously be much more discreet about what I put into my email. That's where you encounter the bogosity aspect of Dubya's claims of the necessity of this kind of illegal surveillance. Wannabe terrorists are not going to jeopardize their complicated plans by describing them in clear email. They aren't even going to expose their real communication channels. Insofar as they are going to use technical mechanisms at all, they are going to go out of their way to obfuscate both the message, the source, and the destination--all of which are trivially easy for anyone who is actually motivated to do so.

No, there's only one aspect of this that has surprised me so far. That was when Dubya admitted he had done it. He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means. He apparently thinks it is only related to a certain number of votes in Congress, but that's just the transient political status. What Dubya has confessed to doing is clearly a violation of the laws that he swore to defend.

Re:Soviet phone listening to you?

[mikek3332002 (912228)]

He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means.

Sure he does it's where you sleep with your secetary.

Re:Soviet phone listening to you?

[AsiNisiMasa (910721)]

He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means.

I think he (or his advisors) looked back at what happened to Nixon and realized that a coverup would be a bad move in the long run.

How is the data used?

[wasted (94866)]

The real privacy concerns to me are whether the NSA is sharing this information to be used by others for purposes other than those used to justify the monitoring. For instance, if they hear that I have a real big order of yeast and barley malt enroute from one company, and a lot of lab equipment on order from another company, will they alert the ATF that I have just ordered the necessary ingredients and supplies to start distillng alcohol? Although illegal where I reside, a still is not a security risk, and passing on that type of information seems to me to be the greater privacy risk, and goes against the whole reason for the monitoring in the first place. Of course, others may disagree, and no, I don't have a still.

Re:How is the data used?

[keraneuology (760918)]

Rumors have it that information obtained by the NSA is routinely passed along to US corporations to assist them in obtaining contracts. Read here [corpwatch.org].

Oh, he probably does.

[jd (1658)]

Unfortunately, Dubya also understands what it means to have majorities in both houses, soon to be the Supreme Court as well. It means that the odds of an impeachment crossing BOTH houses AND surviving an appeal would be next to nil. Especially as he is popular with the extreme right and it's the extreme right that'll probably decide 2006' elections. After that point, impeachment proceedings would last longer than the remaining presidential term.

In short, there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about him. There are no effective safeguards and no meaningful counterbalances for this kind of situation. The best any moderate can hope for is that both the 2006 and 2008 elections are decided by great enough margins towards those who want effective safeguards, that it'll be as easy to stabilize and secure the system then as it has been for the current administration to corrupt it.

My personal preference would be for a constitutional amendment that added a wholly new branch of Government - outside the Executive, Legislative and Judicial - that has all the necessary powers, clearances, means and protections to investigate corruption at absolutely any level in every branch of Government. That is it. That is all it would do. Just investigate. Because it was independent of all other branches, it would not have political appointments made to it, could not be ordered to stop, or indeed even ordered to start. The power of such a body is not in what it could do, but in what it could know.

Government is often corruptible, not because it is powerful - most humans are powerful over something in their lives, but aren't necessarily abusive - but because few in Government have any reason to believe anyone'll know about it. The moment you can guarantee that (a) someone WILL know about it - no matter how classified the information, and (b) they're utterly protected against reprisals if they talk, then those in power will be much less likely to step over the line. (And, if they do genuinely feel as though they have to, they're going to put every ounce of effort into establishing WHY no alternatives are viable, because they WILL be asked questions later.)

Re:Oh, he probably does.

[SilverspurG (844751)]

My personal preference would be for a constitutional amendment that added a wholly new branch of Government - outside the Executive, Legislative and Judicial

Given the size and scope, much of it unconstitutional, of our current government the best answer can not possibly be more government. The only way to fix bloatware is to hack it down.

Re:Oh, he probably does.

[shanen (462549)]

Are you trying to write a parody there? What you are describing is called "the Press", and they still have the legal requirements to do the job you described. What is lacking now is the will. Or if you prefer to look at it from the other perspective, they have simply sold their souls for convenience and a bit of job security.

Re:Soviet phone listening to you?

[Dun Malg (230075)]

The modification to make your telephone into a bugging device is actually quite trivial.

Was quite trivial. It's not 1975 anymore, though, and all our phones aren't model 500 or 2500 Western Electrics. Nowadays, just about everyone has a cheap electronic phone made of inexpensive parts glued inside a plastic case. The [NSA/FBI/CIA] can't just send a guy in disguised as the telephone repair man to couple the carbon mic circuit to the live pair with a resistor like they used to. Not to say they have no way to listen to you, just thought you might want to update your paranoia to something more modern, like laser modulation audio bugging, rather than continuing to use one that's been pretty much abandoned for 20 years.

Re:Soviet phone listening to you?

[NMerriam (15122)]

No, you're talking about tapping a phone, which is not what the original post was about. The message you're replying to was talking about using a phone as a bug -- something that used to be quite simple, and now is pretty much impossible. The difference is pretty significant, since most criminals realize someone could be listening when they're talking on the phone -- but most of them didn't realize someone could be listening after they hung up!

Re:Slashdots Constituional Scholars

[keraneuology (760918)]

If you were shouting across the street about your plans and a cop overhears it, its fair game. The same goes for Cellphones or any kind of transmission over radio. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Incorrect. The standard by which "shouting across the street" is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy clearly does not apply when considering the prohibition of using a scanner to intercept cellular communications. As written in Bartnicki v. Vopper the US Supreme Court recognizes that US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119 is valid:

any person who:

(a)intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(yadda yadda yadda... you can read the rest for yourself).

The interception of a cellular communication is, in fact, subject to a warrant specifically because it is designed and intended to be used as person-to-person communications unless specifically used otherwise - dialing into a group party line, for example.

Heres a little conundrum to go with this debate. Its also been revealed that administration has authorized the monitoring of mosques, homes of foreign nationals, homes of americans with terrorist connections, and other possible targets for radiation associated with a nuclear weapon. No break ins, no entering the property, just passive radiation detection. How should the 4th ammendment relate to this.

I have no objections: in my book parking across the street with a geiger counter does not reasonably constitute a search; furthermore it is a reasonable and expected function of the government to monitor air quality. This is entirely different than the use of thermal imaging which was used to detect grow-lights within residential homes: a practice which was prudently struck down by the Supreme Court (a rare correct decision).

Re:For the security of the many..

[hey! (33014)]

"Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice"
- Proverbs 16:8

I have been told that the Hebrew word that is usually translated as "righteousness" has another, overlooked sense: "objectivity". It is one thing to say, for example, that giving alms to the poor is righteous. However what makes charity righteous is that objectively the needs of others sometimes exceeds their resources, while at the same time our resources may exceed our needs. The "unrighteous" handles the misfortunes of the needy through wishful thinking: they must be unlucky because they are bad. Indeed, it would be a wonderful world where the good are rich and the wicked are poor. However, a righteous person lives in the world as it is not as he wishes it to be.

When I was young, we were taught that as part of our baptismal vows we had to "reject the glamour of evil." This is a curious choice of words. "Glamour" is an archaic English word which means a kind of magical illusion. It's saying the same thing: to live righteously, we must reject illusion that the world is place where good served by our indulging our infantile and selfish impulses.

We most commonly act unrighteously out of unjustified fear. Fear of death and misfortune. What makes the fear unjustified is that objectively speaking these things inevitably must come to us. It is not our choice. But objectively it is our choice to live in freedom. Therefore what we should fear most is the loss of liberty.

It's not that what the Bush adminstration is doing is wrong. Indeed the kind of analysis described in this article is very important in detecting an imminent terrorist attack. No, the problem is that they wish to do it outside any form of accountability. No man, and for that matter no government, can be righteous if he is not accountable to somebody who will look at his deeds with an independent and critical eye. It's not possible. That's why when we say somebody is "self-righteous", we of course understand that this means they are not righteous at all. "Self-righteous" means they're only righteous from their own self-serving point of view, a point of view that could not survive objective scrutiny.

Re:Some credit is due

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

You got it. The current disruption to the U.S. is exactly what the "terrorists" wanted. There is only the need to wait and see if the bush administration can fuck up things even worse.

However, if TPTB are controlling both the government and the terrorists, then what has happened so far is what I would expect - No further "attacks".

There is no reason for further attacks because the bush administration is doing a fine job at screwing up the U.S., by doing whatever they want, like ignoring the law for example.

No further attacks unless they need to scare and confuse the U.S. Congress into doing something really stupid, like making the Patriot act permanent.

So, if the U.S. Congress fails to make it permanent, then there will likely be some kind of terrorist "event", just to scare everyone and see if they can get congress to panic. Then bush will go around blaming the lack of the act as to why the "terrorist event" was able to occur, and to put the pressure on congress to reconsider. Most people would not see the fallacy in that argument.

Instead of extending the Patriot act, they should concentrate on the bush administration.

There are clues there that will lead to the "terrorists".

It is no surprise that Bin Laden has not been caught, they may need him again to scare congress.

Lesson Learned: Use Open Source, and Encrypt

[mozumder (178398)]

Please work to make the system secure, even from government intrusion.

Governments come and go.. no need to drag yourself into their mess.

Re:Use what?

[laughingcoyote (762272)]

well... are you really trying to hide something from the government? i mean, i have a healthy paranoia but it's not of the federal government, it of corperations and scam artists. seriously, what do you have to hide?

Don't tell me someone is spewing that garbage again. Oh, someone is. Don't we learn anything? Ever?

What do I have to hide? The details of my private life. Period. Whether or not I'm doing anything illegal, I don't want a camera in my living room, nor my bedroom, nor my bathroom. If the police can develop probable cause to believe I've committed a crime, and need to search one of those rooms, or all of them, they can go before a judge, get a warrant, and search away. But until then, they can stay out.

Same applies to your communications. Would you be entirely comfortable with your speech over the phone if you knew someone was always listening? I don't want someone tapping into my phones. Once again, if they'd like to go get a warrant, tap away-and until then, stay out.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has been used by totalitarian regimes to justify their actions this world over. And yet, it keeps on getting said, by people just like you.

How about we turn that around? The US government is supposed to work in a means that is as transparent as possible to the American people, as it should be. If they've got nothing to hide, they can quit taking so damn many of their actions in secret. They can tell us why hundreds of people are detained without a trial at one of our military bases. They can tell us why they're intercepting communications without telling us-and surely, they can tell us what good that's done so far.

After all, if they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear from us having a look.

I'll scratch your back...

[ThatGeek (874983)]

I've always wondered what huge companies get by turning over data to the Feds. Companies never do anything to "make the world a better place" unless they are getting something in return... reduced regulation? maybe tax reductions?

All I know is that democracy dies behind closed doors. What exactly is going on in this country?

This is EXACTLY why I'm learning Spanish! Costa Rica by the year 2010, baby.

Re:I'll scratch your back...

[humphrm (18130)]

Given the way accounting worked in the early 2000's in corporate America, it was probably "cooperate and we won't look very deeply into your books..."

Democracy is indeed in sad shape now, but fortunately democracy only truly dies behind closed doors over a long period of time. Ultimately the 22nd Amendment fixes that problem.

(The rest of you can go look it up on Google. :)

Re:I'll scratch your back...

[sadler121 (735320)]

The 22nd Amendment was a horriable amendment, it now makes the president unaccountable in his second term. REPEAL the 22nd Amendment, do NOT praise it. If the 22nd Amendment wasn't there, we might very well still have Clinton in office (would rather have Slick Willy in office then Dubya), hell, Regan could have had another term, that wouldn't have been so bad ether...

It's a new technology...

[farrellj (563)]

The people over at Ars Technica have a great little article about this whole fiasco concerning the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrent...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808 .html [arstechnica.com]

From the article:

"Now let's take a look a statement of former senator Bob Graham (D-FL), who was one of the few senators to be briefed on the program. From a new Washington Post article:

        "I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches."

and

" This system's [TIA] purpose would be to monitor communications and detect would-be terrorists and plots before they happen... This project is not interested in funding "evolutionary" changes in technology, e.g., bit-step improvements to current data mining and storage techniques. Rather, the amount of data that the directors are anticipating (petabytes!) would require massive leaps in technology (and perhaps also some massive leaps in surveillance laws). According to DARPA, such data collection "increases information coverage by an order of magnitude," and ultimately "requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models.""

ttyl
          Farrell

We knew it from the begining

[AK Marc (707885)]

This administration has always been pro-mining (and drilling), so this should be no surprise.

The Network Architecture of Treason

[Ivan Raikov (521143)]

Lambert over at CorrenteWire has a pretty interesting article on Internet surveillance by the NSA [correntewire.com]:

By carefully examining how Republicans parse their statements about Bush's warrantless, openly felonious, and treasonous[1] domestic surveillance program, and combining that with network engineering knowledge available through open sources, alert reader philosophicus has advanced our understanding of the NSA surveillance system Bush set up. Long story short: (1) Internet surveillance is Bush's goal, not voice calls; (2) the Republican "wiretap" talking point is a diversion, to voice, away from from Internet surveillance; (3) Bush's domestic surveillance system would pose no engineering challenges whatever to NSA. No rocket science--or tinfoil hats--required.

Friends and Family

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

FTFA:
"If they get content, that's useful to them too, but the real plum is going to be the transaction data and the traffic analysis," he said. "Massive amounts of traffic analysis information - who is calling whom, who is in Osama Bin Laden's circle of family and friends - is used to identify lines of communication that are then given closer scrutiny."

This is just the sort of sensitive information that the Whitehouse did not want leaked. Now Osama is going to change his long distance calling plan.

How to cope?

[sglider (648795)]

How can we as the American people cope with a President that doesn't even acknowledge [mcall.com] that what he's doing is illegial? How can we further cope with a Congress that hasn't already 'stopped the presses' by calling for immediate hearings on the matter? I don't mean hearings next week, or next month. I want hearings now. This is a grave threat to our liberties, and I want it addressed right now.

Of course, this President speaks [whitehouse.gov] about 'freedom [wikipedia.org]', but does 'freedom' include not being able to openly discuss laws and policies [cnn.com]?

Oh, and the 'fanboy' contingent that believes that civil liberties must be curtailed in a time of conflict need not reply, because I'm not listening, and I doubt [blueoregon.com] Thomas Jefferson would listen to it either.

Re:How to cope?

[Amiga Trombone (592952)]

Of course, this President speaks about 'freedom', but does 'freedom' include not being able to openly discuss laws and policies?

Of course not. Every time I hear this president use the word "freedom", it's in conjunction with a military invasion of another country.

It's not a product intended for domestic consumption.

The terrorists are you

[dada21 (163177)]

Yes, you, the voter. You've allowed this to happen in every vote you made for an authoritarian politician -- I can name ONE that has followed their oath (Dr. Ron Paul of Texas http://house.gov/paul [house.gov] )

The telecommunications companies are regulated by Congress, illegally and unconstitutionally. Communication is speech. Speech is an inherent right all humans share and can not be infringed by any government.

You give them the power to regulate, they'll make it their power to control in their favor. Initially that favor is only financial -- take care of their nepotism and cronies. Eventually they turn to "help the needy" when the regulations for the needy really only help the monopolies they've created. In the end, the control is about power -- absolute power over the minions.

Don't don the tinfoil hat, it isn't necessary. Just see that every empire has its day, and the ones most responsible are those who elected, not those who were elected.

I vote only for myself -- each and every line of each and every ballot. In my mind, I win. I picked the candidate best suited to represent my family and I.

Must be careful with this path

[by Anonymous Coward]

The problem with all these intelligence programs is the "mission creep" of where they start with what seems like a good cause then morph into being used against constitutionally protected forms of expression such as peaceful dissent and opposing viewpoints. When a program is sold as anti-terrorism in nature as its sole purpose and is given broad lattitude to push the edges of the constitution and elinimate checks-and-balances protections it is a sobering and serious grant of power we are giving one branch of the government. But when it quickly becomes another general-use law enforcement tool used in mundane investigations it is very troublesome and scary.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument rings hollow when intense surveilance is used as a political weapon.

Until such time as the administration and intelligence agencies can exercise some self-restraint and accountability I will view all these warrantless intrusions with intense suspicion.

We are a country of laws based on a strong and unique constitution. I would like it to remain that way.

Modern USA

[gorehog (534288)]

I love living in the USA controlled by monied interests and the Republican party. They foster such an honest, compassionate, and responsible atmosphere for civil discourse.

Torture, lying, spying on citizens, the list of crimes Bush is responsible for goes on and on. Would someone give this guy a blowjob already so we can impeach him?

what's the problem?

[by Anonymous Coward]

As long as you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

And as long as you don't walk funny or wear all one color. And don't celebrate "weird" holidays. And you probably shouldn't visit those weird porn sites or read some of those really liberal sites. And you should eat meat, at least every now and then. Don't be militant about the vegetarian thing, you know? And you really should have a regular job. If you have a lot of free time to go to protests and stuff like that, you might get in the wrong crowd. And probably French is a better choice to learn at that community college than Arabic. Yeah, I know you like the falafel, but don't buy so much of it okay? At least pay cash (but small amounts so you don't raise suspicion) And when you finish thumbing through those books (you know the ones I'm talking about) at the bookstore or library, put them back on the shelf, okay? Actually, why are you going to the library? You've got money to buy books. Only certain types of people go to the library. And, it's okay to criticize the president, with your friends, but no need to put that stuff on your blog, you know? How about an American flag on there? Whatever you think about Iraq, just talk about how you support the troops. Sure you can support the troops but not the war, but you gotta watch how you say it. And I don't mean on your cell phone. Just don't talk about politics on the cell. Yeah I know about your depression, just try to go outside as much as you can, just fake it, whatever, it's safer when they see you come and go more often. No, the tattoo should be of the flag, or a heart, or something. Makes it easier when you're searched. Remember to say "Merry Christmas". I know, I know, but it's just a couple words. Have you considered tossing a bible into your pack in case you're searched? You should take off those pins.. they give the wrong impression. And those electronics books, you're not in school, people might think you're making something you shouldn't. If somebody asks, tell them your TV is being repaired. I think you'd look better without the beard. It's just a suggestion.

Just basically stay inside the bell curve, and you'll be fine!

Timing of this story is worrisome

[bstarrfield (761726)]

This is probably one of the most important stories of the year... not to be too dramatic, but possibly the most important story in the last ten. The US government is conducting warrentless wiretaps on its citizens, collecting information in a vest unsupervised net.

This news came to the fore the day before Christmas. And folks, it's on Slashdot Christmas Eve. How many people are paying attention to this? The New York Times is already in hot water for holding the initial story for a year. Now more and more facts are coming out, during a time when few people watch the news, Congress is out of session, and the president and his staff can be on vacation. It's on Slashdot, and I'm checking Slashdot as I'm watching Red Sleigh Down (South Park) on Comedy Central... how many Slashdot readers are looking at the site? No offesnse to the rest of the worl...

Jesus, this story may damn well disappear into the *void that's American political memory.

People, I pray that this story - the Orwellian degradation of our liberties, the expansion of the police state, the emergence of fascism as corporations and security institutions work together - does not fade away. Write your congressional representatives, write the paper, bug your friends and family, but don't ignore this issue.

We've got to make

When fourth estate fails to hold liars accountable

[NZheretic (23872)]

From The Mass Media as Fourth Estate [ndirect.co.uk]:

The term fourth estate is frequently attributed to the nineteenth century historian Carlyle, though he himself seems to have attributed it to Edmund Burke:

Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite.

The mainstream media has failed to hold either side accountable for claims that diverge widely from the known facts [blogspot.com]. The inevitable result is a current administration that, like Nixon, believes it is above the law.

It's dead Jim, but it has been for a while.

[nbahi15 (163501)]

I know that it is typical for the Slashdot libertarian crowd to have an aversion, almost knee-jerk reaction, to any privacy related issue, we Slashdot liberals feel the same. Bush has once again crossed the line, but as a neo-pinko liberal I am not surprised, I am not even particularly annoyed. My disgust with the United States and its inability to provide an open inclusive society runs far deeper than this single incident. I am annoyed with Missle Defense, drilling in ANWR, Intelligent Design, pro-life, pro-death penalty, secret prisons, prisoner abuse, tying iraq to terror, no child left behind, get tough on immigration, get tough on crime, christian coalition, anti-welfare, anti-healthcare, anti-gun control, pro-business, anti-environment, crap. Really the entire political dialogue of the so-called United States has been broken for years, and Bush certainly doesn't see anything less than absolute god-granted carte blanche on the war on terror. Remember this guy doesn't answer to the voter, he answers to god. So my question is when can we vote on the new constitution, because I feel that I am the one living in Iraq, but I don't have the excuse of invasion?

Re:It's dead Jim, but it has been for a while.

[Derling Whirvish (636322)]

Remember this guy doesn't answer to the voter

He answered to the voters in 2004 (though apparantly not to you -- remember that you are not everybody) and the voters told him to keep doing what he was doing for another four years. In 2008, you can decide who you want to run the next four years. You are not five years old anymore. All the cookies are not for you.

Re:It's dead Jim, but it has been for a while.

[nbahi15 (163501)]

In this country, with two choices for president, can anything really be decided by election with such low voter turnout? Maybe what the voters said was "None of the above."

I for one...

[cwaldrip (216578)]

...welcome our new NSA overlords.

No, screw that... where's my gun! Time to overthrow the gov... hey, who are you? Get out of my house! Let go of me... I haven't even posted this yet...

Boiling this down.

[blair1q (305137)]

In other words, they didn't just tap the phones of a few people.

They invaded the privacy of EVERY person in the country.

Rather than provide leadership and encourage us to cooperate with each other as a society, they've chosen the route of paranoia, secrecy, and tyranny.

Sharks

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

There have been thousands of shark attacks [ufl.edu] over the years. I propose that we install cameras and other surveillance equipment in your bathroom, to prevent more unnecessary carnage. If you actually mind having your privacy invaded, it's probably because you hate America and sympathize with the sharks. What are you hiding?

Re: al-Qaida

[Black Parrot (19622)]

> Good thing to know that if downtown New York got bombed, and thousands of people died, nobody would want to know if someone was plotting another attack like that.

Good to know that you don't think freedom is worth dying for.

Too bad about all those who died for nothing over the centuries.

Re:al-Qaida

[Kristoph (242780)]

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"....Benjamin Franklin

]{

Re:KGB

[harris s newman (714436)]

George swore to uphold and protect the constitution of the USA. If he blatantly disregards law, he is in violation of his oath to be President. As such he should be impeached. Without an impeachment, the congress and supreme courts are giving up their power to the President, which would result in a dictatorship. I have already written my representatives the request to have an investigation into this issue, and hope others will follow my behavior.

Re: KGB

[Black Parrot (19622)]

> Is there anybody out there who doubts that Bush is not good for our country?

There's some as to whether he's even in the loop [newyorker.com].

Why I hate my country

[porkThreeWays (895269)]

I'm an American. A young one at that (22). I grew up under Regan, Bush, and Clinton. During those 3 administrations I had pride in my country. Yeah, there were scandals and scuffs and this and that, but over all I still had pride in my country. Then came 9/11...

It makes me so made that so many people died in 9/11 for nothing. I think if most of them saw the chain of events that happened after that it would make them sick. This administration has used their deaths to propel their agenda forward. If you oppose them, you are un-american (or so they'd have you believe). It's possibly the sickest thing I've ever seen. This whole administration is on the same level as Hitler. The fact they can send countless troops not only to their deaths, but many injured and may never walk or see or live a normal life again. It's just sick.

They have undone 100 years of privacy laws in just a few short years in the name of "terrorism". Terrorism is like the fucking boogie man in this country. Completely intangable, yet we are being forced by Bush's regime to be constantly scared of it. Before 9/11 terrorism in this country was neglable. Since then, we've had no major attacks in this country. Yet I've had all my rights stripped because of this "threat" that has affect so few people personally. More people will die by morning of heart disease than 9/11 and the Iraq war combined (American deaths). Our priorties are all fucked up.

The 24 hour news channels don't help. They scare everyone into thinking there's something to be afraid of. THERE ISN'T. Be afriad of dying because you don't take care of your body. Be afriad of dying in your SUV because of a rollover. Be afraid of dying from getting AIDS from unprotected sex. Don't be afriad of dying from terrorism.

We are all dying a slow death anyway. Is living in this made up state of fear constantly really living? I sure as hell don't think it is. Our forefathers gave their lives for what? For an administration to come along and undo hundreds of years of work in an instant?

Fuck you bush adminstration for scaring people. Fuck you 24 hour news channels for spreading the bullshit scare tactics. Fuck you Americans who lie back on your sofa being manipulated by these assholes.

Bush is the real terrorist, and he's already won.

Re:Why I hate my country

[DrJimbo (594231)]

anon said:

You can bitch and whine all you want, but I sleep more comfortably at night knowing that our military machine is actively trying to kill everyone who beheads westerners for the glory of their god.

On the off chance you actually mean what you say, I will respond.

The execution of westerners in Iraq started only after the USA invaded Iraq for no good reason. Confirmed counts of Iraqi civilian deaths due the invasion range from 27,000 to over 30,000 [iraqbodycount.org]. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed are over 100,000.

If foreigners invaded the USA for no good reason and kept the USA under military occupation and killed tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent US civilians, don't you think there would be some reprisals against the invaders?

I am not saying that the executions in Iraq are justified. All deliberate killing is terrible. But are the executions of westerners any worse than the killing of Iraqi civilians?

And your answer to all this killing that makes you sleep more comfortably at night is to kill more Iraqis? Thank goodness only a few Iraqis (the ones committing the executions) think like you do and feel more comfortable knowing people are trying to kill Americans.

Here is a radical idea. The USA has undisputed military dominance over the rest of the world. We spend way more, we have way more nukes, we are better at killing than any other country on Earth. This means we are in a better position to stop killing. So let's just stop killing. Today, or more fitting (depending on your timezone), tomorrow.

Let's pull out of the countries we are occupying as quickly as we can without being foolish about it. Let's remove our military bases from the Middle East. Let's divert some of our military budget (say 10% for starters) to helping provide basic necessities to the poorer parts of the world. While we're at it, let's stop torturing people and stop jailing people indefinitely without charge or recourse to the court system.

If people getting killed is the problem then killing people is not the solution. Killing people is never the solution.

Re:Ohhhh say can you see ...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps its time to remember this quote, which speaks a timeless truth:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done, and I am Caesar."

-Julius Caesar

Re:Who cares what the (out-of-touch) NYT thinks?

[Hartree (191324)]

Interesting that the parent gets modded "troll". Slashdot modding at its best.

Note that "for years now" should be "for decades now".

Stick the term "NSA line eater" into google groups and see the output in 1986.

Echelon has been around a long time, people. It's been pretty widely known for a long time as well.

It's fine to debate whether the program is wise, or legal, or whether it should be legal. But implying this is something relatively new and shocking is reminiscent of Claude Raines in Casablanca.

The more interesting question is, what were the specifics of the bypassing of the FIS court, and what the reasons for that were. Was there a new interpretation for the existing exceptions, or did the increasing ability of technology turn an existing exception into something beyond the original intent of FISA? This isn't clear to me. Frankly, this is a case where details matter, and they are quite lacking.

As is common, those that know the full story aren't talking, and that that are talking, largely don't know the full story.

Re:Who cares what the (out-of-touch) NYT thinks?

[eln (21727)]

Remember when the idea of being able to go to a secret court, rather than an open court, to get a warrant was shocking?

Now, we uphold the secret court as a just alternative to what the President is actually doing.

Re:Who cares what the (out-of-touch) NYT thinks?

[Jesus 2.0 (701858)]

Nothing wrong was done.

Bullshit.

Pick up a "Dummies Guide to American Government" so that you can understand that the President just doesn't launch secret programs without anyone else knowing about it.

Point out the page on which "Dummies Guide to American Government" says that the President can order warrantless spying on Americans.

Stop skimming the headlines of articles and don't get stuck in that "read once, repeat many" syndrome. Do the research. It's not like this is the first time a program like this was launched.

Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.

When did slashdot become so Anti-American?

When did defending the Bill of Rights become anti-American?

How many of our operative's identities were uncovered and made public by the news media?

I don't know, how many? And what does that have to do with the fact that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans?

No one seems to be shouting TREASON and yet when SUPPORT is there for the president to use any means possible to find terrorists some people want to help the terrorists instead.

Explain to me how not getting a warrant helps the terrorists. While doing so, keep in mind that the law allows you t retroactively get a warrant up to 72 hours after spying is initiated.

Strange. I guess you just have to lose someone in a building due to a terrorist attack to appreciate what this administration is doing for you.

To appreciate direct and unabashed violation of the Fourth Amendment? I'm afraid it will take a lot more than that for me to appreciate it.

Stop saying that America is not Free and is such a "Horrible" place to live in.

Exactly where did I say what you quote me as saying there?

Are you nuts? Have you been outside of the US lately and I don't mean some layover between flights? It's crazy out there. Take a walk in your local park and be grateful that you don't have to dodge bullets or worry about your 5 year old daughter being raped.

Explain to me exactly what my five year old daughter being raped has to do with the President ordering warrantless spying on Americans.

Most importantly, if you decide to use your wonderful freedom of free speech, use it wisely. Don't spew forth nonsense. Sheep are stupid.

They sure are.

Maybe it is, but how can you tell?

[khasim (1285)]

Does anyone remember what happened Sept 11, 2001?

Yep. Terrorists flew airplanes into buildings killing 3,000+ US civilians. What do you remember?

Yeah, there has been a lot of "unauthorized" spying, but it looks to be pretty specific (e.g., Mosques... where large Muslim populations ostensibly would have privacy to worship).

So ... unauthorized spying is okay with you ... as long as you aren't the one being spied upon?

First they came for the ...
You know the rest.

The United States was attacked and continues to be targeted for major future terror attacks.

More people die on the highways than have ever been killed by terrorists in ANY year in the US.

And, like it or not, the community most likely to cultivate, plan, and escalate this activity is Muslim.

No. You're confusing the part for the whole.

Because the terrorists were Muslims ...
Does not make Muslims terrorists.

Many people have cats as pets ...
But not everyone who has a pet has a cat.

And, a country so viciously attacked would be naive, maybe even stupid to allow unfettered large gatherings where this planning could go on with no observation.

You are taking your previous logical fallacy and extending it to contradict one of our basic rights in our Constitution.

I cringe to think spying may go on, and may be necessary, but it isn't the same world as five years ago.

Actually, it is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. The only difference is that YOU have had certain items forcibly displayed to YOU.

Israel has had to deal with suicide bombers for years longer.

As for those complaining about the abridgement of their rights and rampant government interference I would ask you, have you or anyone you know observed or experienced serious interference in your life (lives)?

Yes. I know Muslims who have been threatened by overzealous "patriots" here.

I haven't, and I don't know anyone who has.

That's great. You might want to re-read the bit I wrote about how it is YOU who hasn't seen things that have existed for others for years.

I may not be happy the world is a bit more wrapped around the axle these days, but I am happy to live in a country that has enough freedom that you can print the president's face on toilet paper.

That's great. Meaningless, but great.

When members of Congress cannot even discuss the meetings the President calls with their lawyers ... that's okay as long as I can buy toilet paper.

I think you're a little bit confused about "freedom".

Re:If the first attempt at FUD doesn't work, repea

[Sri Ramkrishna (1856)]

Nobody is arguing that intel on communications is a bad thing. The real news is bypassing the courts to make sure that what and who they are spying on is legitimate. For instance, we don't want them spying on democrats in order to get the jump on them politically so that they can consistently stay in power by being to outmanuever them. Information is power, and how they get that information should be regulated.

Secondly, if the President can do all this. Why bother with a the patriot act at all? Seems like he has all the power he needs to do what he's doing. Thirdly, he told the American public that he's going to the court to do wire-tapping. Now we find out thats not whats going on at all. Somebody isn't playing straight with us. That's the news. The NSA/FBI/CIA spying is not news and that I agree with you.

sri

Bullshit. You're distoring the law.

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

Ok, look, if you're gonna quote the law, give us a link to it:

from FISA [cornell.edu]

Subchapter 1 (Electronic Surveillance) has the relevant passages of the law.

Though perhaps you didn't want to give us the link to that, because if you had, someone would have gone and read the law and seen that you're full of shit.

1. Your point about "not conflating a US person with a US citizen" is non sequitir and meaningless. A US citizen is a US person under the statute, as is a resident alien (a person granted a green card), among others:

   Section 1801 [cornell.edu]
   (i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

2. The section of the law you quote is only the definitions section. Specifically, you're quoting what the definition of Electronic Surveilance is. Nothing in what you quote actually discusses the LEGALITY of tapping activities in the US or the warrants required therefore. You missed section 1802 of FISA. This section is about "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court." That section has the following to say about electronic surveilance and when warrants are needed:

   from Section 1802 [cornell.edu]
   (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
   (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
   (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
   (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
   (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;and

   (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

   if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

   Unless the communications take place completely under means controlled by a foriegn power (i.e., not involving US communications carriers), they are potentially subject to FISA judicial oversight requirements. If any party involved in said communication is a US person in the statute, a court order is required. This does not just apply to communications