Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

More Details Emerge On Domestic Spying Programs

Posted by kdawson on Sat Dec 15, 2007 08:36 PM
from the government-and-business-a-sittin'-in-a-tree dept.
The feed brings us this NYTimes story giving new details on the telecom carriers' cooperation with secret NSA (and other) domestic spying programs. One revelation is that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been running a program since the 1990s to collect the phone records of calls from US citizens to Latin America in order to catch narcotics traffickers. Another revelation is what exactly the NSA asked for in 2001 that Qwest balked at supplying. According to the article, it was access to the company's most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • yeah (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:38PM (#21713282) Homepage
    One revelation is that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been running a program since the 1990s to collect the phone records of calls from US citizens to Latin America in order to catch narcotics traffickers.

    ...thereby winning the war on drugs once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL!
    • 100's of pounds of reefer madness just entered the US from Canada while you wrote your message.
    • There are no drugs in this country. Anyone who tells you any different is lying. The War on Drugs was won in 1998 after a long, determined effort on the part of various federal and state agencies. If you persist in spreading rumors of the existence of illicit substances in this country, you will be asked to report to your local Reeducation Center for instruction. Thank you!

        • While violent crime *did* fall during the Clinton Administration, the propaganda-myth that cocaine use plummeted (except for extremely short term periods) was refuted recently on the Washington Post's factchecker [washingtonpost.com], with the relevant time period in this graph [washingtonpost.com].
        • Re:yeah (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mpe (36238) on Sunday December 16 2007, @06:45AM (#21716024)
          While I believe some drugs should be legal (Cannabis, Heroin, LSD, etc) I think some should still stay illegal and be completely eradicated like cocaine which can cause major problems within a society.

          Totally eradicating a drug is virtually impossible. There's also the problem that drug prohibition cause a lot of major problems to society.
    • Why bother tapping Americans' phones to search for narcotraffickers when they could just bust the CIA, which alternates torture flights with cocaine flights [google.com]? Iran/Contra forever!

      Or maybe they need to tap phonecalls from Cheney to his Saud buddies [google.com]. Iran/Contra forever [google.com]!
  • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:40PM (#21713304) Homepage Journal
    Of course they balked at being asked for access to the home records,

    Criminal gangs, cartels and organisations are not individual customers and must have a business account with the phone company.
    • by Tore S B (711705) on Saturday December 15 2007, @10:24PM (#21713914)
      Why, oh WHY wasn't this modded "Funny"? "INSIGHTFUL"?! Ironically, I feel compelled to yell "GET SERIOUS!"
      I can just picture the conversation at the local drug cartel:

      A cartel boss hangs up his cellphone after ordering the murder of several interfering policemen.
      Boss: We need a phone line for our new location
      Henchman: Sure thing, boss. Which fake name should I register it under?
      Boss: ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY MAD!? THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE! Murder, fine, extortion, fine, but VIOLATING TELEPHONE COMPANY TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS!? We're not IDIOTS here! THIS IS A BUSINESS, and we have to REGISTER AS SUCH!
            • That's a good interpretation, and a valid one, but not *quite* what I meant. Gangmembers sometimes have jobs. Those jobs may be in corporate buildings, even if the job is only minimum wage slinging burgers while they're on probation: that's one of many excuses for wanting unfettered and unmonitored access to the telephone switching system at every level.

              The second part is quite right: any excuse for invading civil liberties is enough for someone, like the NSA or CIA or FBI or the DEA or any of a variety of
  • by delire (809063) on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:51PM (#21713364)
    Of course if this were a story about Government abuse of civil liberties in China, as applied to privacy, people would be decrying it as immaculate example of that failed, corruptible political system we call Communism. In America it just defers to "Well what have you got to hide, bad guy?"

    Describing America in the context of Democracy becomes increasingly difficult.
    • by kryten_nl (863119) on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:07PM (#21713474)
      A democracy (ideally) follows the will of the majority. America is afraid. They are willing to trade liberty for security. Don't get me wrong, I still have high hopes for the next POTUS. But if the people do not change their mind and keep thinking that the mini-mall in a sleepy rural Oklahoman town is a "potential-terrorist-target", the terrorists have already won.

        • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday December 15 2007, @10:15PM (#21713876) Homepage Journal
          That's not a democracy you're describing.. it's a constitutional republic. Which, ya know, is probably a heck of a lot better than a pure democracy, but seeing as the majority of Americans don't even know the difference between the two, what hope is there?

          • by The One and Only (691315) * <phil@philwelch.net> on Saturday December 15 2007, @11:48PM (#21714386) Homepage

            Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic, evidently neither do you. A democracy is any system in which the population at large controls (in theory, is) the government. A constitutional system is one in which a specific set of rules, known as the "constitution", limits the authority of the government. A republic is any system of government where (a) there is no monarchy and (b) government officials are supposed to represent some subset of the population.

            Nineteenth-century America is an example of an undemocratic republic--only male landowners could vote originally, though by the current day all adult citizens can vote. Current-day Britain is an example of a democratic, constitutional monarchy--while it is not a republic, there is still an (unwritten) constitution limiting the monarchy (otherwise it would be an absolute monarchy), and democracy exists.

            • Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic

              I thought we were the popular front?

              By the way, from now on I want you all to call me "Loretta". :P
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:53PM (#21713376)
    A hearty "Hip! Hip! Hoorah!!" for the tireless people at the EFF [eff.org], who are taking the legal action against this archetypal Orwellian programme to systematically trawl US citizens' private communications. Disclaimer, I'm not an American citizen, but the fact is that American standards are promulgated as the benchmark against which others are judged. (Admittedly that's not exactly a universally accepted position, but let's leave that aside for now :) ) So to that extent, if I in my country find my own government is doing something similar (as I'm sure they are; we don't have a specific law against it, and we do have some useful facilities in that respect), we can at least use the argument that "Look, this is so bad that they don't even allow it in the United States any more!" (Yeah, the positioning on that's also, uh, evolved in the last few decades...)

    So, my point: before posting a rant about the fascist big brother state that rules from beyond the centre of the Ultraworld, for heaven's sake take some actions to register your protest, and to work against it. This is the real freedom for which more abstract things like the right to not have your comms intercepted by the government. No-one's going to kick your door in at 5am and drag you off to Cuba for it, not yet anyway -(sadly I have to now include the disclaimer "unless you're very unlucky" :( ) There are 300,000-something EFF members and many more supporters, and we haven't ALL been arrested, not yet anyway ;)

    Please, stick your hand in your pocket and send 'em $30 or whatever you can. Join, if you can afford it [eff.org].

    We now return you to the Soviet Russia jokes, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and hair-splitting arguing the toss about the precise spec of the optical splitters being used in San Francisco.

  • The Govt has ALWAYS maintained the ability to do this for international calls. Old FDR did it, probably every administration since the beginning of telecommunications has done this.

    Dicks? Yes.
    Surprising/News? No.
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:56PM (#21713398)
    ...and the method is [Osama] bin Laden's method. It works! You know why I believe it works? It's because despite millions offered for his head, he's eluded capture since 2001, though he still continues to communicate to his lieutenants.

    And he's not just wanted by any government. He's wanted by the so called "most powerful country on earth."

  • Come on, now. The seriously bad dudes out there running major operations aren't (usually) dumb enough to pick up the phone and chat away about their to-do lists. I'd think the use of commodity encryption software and computers has probably replaced a lot of insecure communications channels for these people, leaving the feds to pick up the low-hanging fruit. Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.

    I'd imagine this applies to all sorts of bad guys, whether they're slinging coke by the truckload or plotting terrorist acts. That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs?
      Job security, baby.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      That's because the DEA doesn't really care about stopping drugs. They care about getting some guy, even if the is #137 on the totem pole, to justify their extravagant funding (any amount over $0 is extravagant).

      The DEA is a government jobs program.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.

      If I were playing Devil's Advocate, I'd probably argue that even if you do only get guy #137, that gives you a chance to get him to turn "double agent", and dish up dirt to you on someone higher up the totem pole. You won't get him to get all the way to the top, but you might get, say, guy #100 - then repeat the process, until you get someone who can

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Gotta call bullshit on this one; political protesters aren't exactly difficult to find. There's a couple of guys who post up outside my base every morning with signs, for example. The point of protest is (usually) to make your position known in as public a manner as possible.

          There's a difference between simply seeing protesters and keeping track of them. In the early 1800s the US Supreme Court went so far as to say anonymity was an important part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. If a

  • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:39PM (#21713666) Homepage Journal
    These spying operations are both unconstitutional, and a complete waste of taxpayer time and money.

    Black marketters (i.e., criminals) have wisened up to the fact that the telephone, and the Internet, is not a safe way to communicate. Many of them are even weary of the keyboard, since tapping into a keyboard with a stroke logger has been used to put some people away.

    The drug war amazes me. Powerful interests involved in the profiteering over private medicinal use co-opt the security organizations to battle their competition. And yet few people call for the end to the drug war. The masterminds have long walked away from using technology that is easily spied on. The software, and hardware, that the masterminds use is far and away more powerful than most of the pro-privacy stuff I use. While I'm sure that the security organizations are continuously working to hack into the newer systems, they'll constantly lose ground to that battle.

    Even the lesser members of the underground are moving away from open communications. Technology isn't cheap, but it's cheaper than jail. It's a wonder that people have faith in our security forces, who will always be one-step behind. As far as I'm aware, many of the ex-government security technologists are likely working for the other side (it's much more profitable). If I was truly profit-motivated, I'd likely do it myself, considering the amount of money that is available for someone tech savvy who is willing to provide the latest and greatest hardware and software to stay ahead of the security forces. Of course, morally I'm opposed to such work, but not because it is illegal. It just doesn't interest me to be part of the organizations of that sort. I'd rather do things morally, the law be damned.

    So what is the end purpose of all this technology? It isn't safety for the citizens. I can only think of one reason, mostly conspiratorial, for the money and time spent: the learn how to use it for the powers that control the security forces. They all have their fingers [giulianipartners.com] in the pie, and by using taxpayer money for their research, they get the best of both worlds. Yes, it sounds like NWO-Alex-Jones mumbo-jumbo, but it's the only answer I can think of as to why we continue on with these programs.
      • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:50PM (#21713736) Homepage Journal
        I've had a friend buried over abusing drugs. It wasn't pretty, but neither was their life that led them to drugs. It was doubtful that they were conned into using something they were warned about. Sad, yes, but also reality.

        What's worse is that I have more friends who are addicted to prescribed Vicodin and Percocet. My late Brother-in-Law was addicted to prescribed Oxycodon. Some of the friends I know who pop pills are upper middle class mothers and fathers. I see people abusing alcohol, too. But it isn't my place to control their choices, and it surely isn't my place to tell people what they can take if they have a good relationship with a doctor who isn't out for a quick buck by Big Pharma.

        That Brother-in-Law that was addicted to Oxycodone had late stage MS. He was told by many people to smoke pot, but he didn't want to break the law. Sad, too, because it really looks like pot has lesser side-effects than the legal stuff.

        Sorry about your friend. Maybe if you have time, you can post something on a blog somewhere detailing what pushed her (or him?) to even think about drugs as an escape. All the methheads I've met have the same story: families ignore them, they were never good enough, and they had no one who cared enough to catch their downfall before it happened.
          • Would you rather your rights to privacy and liberty mostly-disappear the moment anyone suspects drugs might be involved, as they do presently? My proposal might not be optimal, but it's one hell of a lot better than what we're trying to do now.

            On the other hand, this whole thing is arguably null: Psuedoephedrine's optical isomer is just as effective at relieving congestion, can't be turned into meth, and has fewer side-effects to boot. You have three guesses which bunch of dickbags are sitting on the patent.
  • by Hamster Lover (558288) * on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:58PM (#21713784) Journal
    How many Bothan spies had to die to get us this information? God knows that the Democratically controlled Congress didn't do shit to get this information.
  • ...after the senate votes and possibly grants them retroactive immunity. Might be a good idea to contact your representatives and remind them that it's not in the best interests of remaining a functional country to encourage people or corporations to break the law. :)
    The EFF has this nifty form to submit e-mails [eff.org] to your senators, but I think phoning or faxing might be more effective at the last minute.
    • by supervillainsf (820395) on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:04PM (#21713464)
      Didn't we have a different administration for most of the 1990's? I am pretty sure that Slick Willie was in the White House from 93 until the end of 2000. While I understand your comment, I think that as a group that is of the opinion that we are smarter than the masses, we really need to stop buying into the Democrat/Republican B.S. and remember that the vast majority of politicians, regardless of of party, are crooks, liars and cheats who hold the interests of their constituents fairly low on their list of priorities. Obviously that excludes election time, and then it's just a matter of how much crap they can shove down our throats to get reelected.
        • False equivalence (Score:5, Insightful)

          by StefanJ (88986) on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:26PM (#21713586) Homepage Journal
          Yes, I remember the Clipper Chip. Essentially, a government-supplied encryption scheme with a backdoor that a law enforcement agency could get a court order to take advantage of.

          I find it difficult to compare that egregious bit of stupidity -- which was proposed and thoroughly shot to pieces in full public view -- with this secretive, shadowy, unaccountable program.
          • 1. Skip obtaining court order.
            2. ???
            3. Profit!!!
            • by civilizedINTENSITY (45686) on Saturday December 15 2007, @11:42PM (#21714360)
              There is a qualitative difference between monitoring phone numbers of international calls, and monitoring data of local calls and local internet traffic. Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice. Civil rights have been degraded, and this fact should not be allowed to lose focus. This is our *constitution*, people. This is serious.
              • Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice.

                Whether doing something wrong is local or international, it is still wrong. The Government should put it's efforts towards making the world a better place, and not spying on people (most spying is based on economic espionage btw), and not the FUD that comes out of the White House.

                On the terrorism side of things; some (and I stress the word some) people just want to kill Americans because of their overbearing authority and influence in (and directed towards) foreign countries (Israel and the "occupied terri

        • by PurPaBOO (604533) on Sunday December 16 2007, @12:15AM (#21714498) Homepage
          http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m39190&hd=&size=1&l=e [uruknet.info]

          wake up, 'merkins.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Gee, where's your faux outrage now?

        There's plenty of outrage to go around. Don't break this into red vs. blue BS. What part of "2001" don't you understand?

        Support the constitution and the 4th Amendment no matter what year it is, and no matter what party is currently in "control".
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Well, there needs to be a little red verses blue. When news of this first happened Bush claimed there was nothing wrong with it and that the previous administration had done the same. Of course that was adamantly denied while at the same time that same administration or elements of the former Clinton administration fueled the outrage over the programs.

          A good majority of why America is pissed about this is because the people who denied doing it. It is only fair that the american public knows that portions of
          • by DaedalusHKX (660194) on Saturday December 15 2007, @11:52PM (#21714402) Journal
            You know what I LOVE about this?

            When "those evil communists" (and they WERE evil, no doubts about it) did the same damn thing in other countries, America's people wondered HOW IN BLAZES the Russians and the other Eastern Block people didn't revolt.

            I mean, their rulers were reading their mail. Kidnapping those who spoke out against abuses, and torturing them... ahem *enhanced interrogating them*... Free speech zones were established, and those who dared speak elsewhere were arrested and sent to Gulags. People who failed to show up for vote or voted for the "upstart" candidate were harassed, and sometimes not heard from again if they dared speak out. Experiments were often run on citizens, and often on the military, without any information or informed consent given. Evidence was often planted of "seditious behavior" or "conspiracy to overthrow the People's Government", usually with some rusty gun being found in someone's haystack as "evidence". One of my uncles ran a small investigation unit when he was younger, and remarked to me as I was growing up, that it was amazing to him that the same gun was found in a dozen different individuals' homes. Those individuals, of course, were quickly apprehended for "intended terroristic activities" and were slam dunked in a typical "kangaroo court" (the name used was "special tribunals"). Nobody mentioned the serial number on the gun... those individuals were eventually executed.

            How is it that those poor bastards living under communism didn't notice all this and put an end to it?! Well let me ask you this... how is it that the poor bastards living in the West don't also notice all this and raise hell? The pattern is the same, even the TERMS in use are the same. Strange that those digging in the future will ask the same questions of this civilization.

            "How come they didn't see it or put an end to it? Were they really that stupid, gullible or blind? Did any of them at all actually walk away? Did any make it out?"
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2007, @09:53PM (#21713760)
      You're saying this "could very well have benefitted you"?!? Specify exactly how, please.

      AFAICT, the only thing the war on drugs successfully accomplished in MY life was to increase the cost of drugs so much that the only way a lower-class American could pay for them was to commit property crimes. Thus I can personally thank the war on drugs for my car and mail getting stolen, and having to change my bank account. Hooray!

      Without the war on drugs, someone in my neighborhood would have been using drugs while holding down a low-wage job. I'm certainly glad that nightmare scenario was avoided!
    • by Derek Loev (1050412) on Saturday December 15 2007, @10:37PM (#21713974)
      As far as the war on drugs [wikipedia.org] comment goes, it may not have affected you in a negative way, but I doubt it benefited you either (or anybody). Something like $500 billion spent and has there been any serious improvement?
    • This is different. The DEA was tracking the phone numbers of international calls, not the conversations of local, domestic calls, and local, domestic internet traffic. This is *different*. Please don't mistake the current situation for the status que.
    • by Unlikely_Hero (900172) on Saturday December 15 2007, @10:49PM (#21714042)
      I think you're confusing how things are supposed to be with how they actually are.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The problem is that this article is just ASSUMING that domestic spying occurs... without any justification except a few court cases with unknown details. My question is how do we know DOMESTIC spying is happening? Monitoring primarily local lines does not mean all the lines are monitored. The only lines that would be monitored are those of NON-US PERSONS (though it may be in the United States. It just seemed to me that the NY Times was simply trying to make a big deal out of something that they didn't k
        • The Washington Post seems to agree: "President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night."

          And also, "Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      What have you been smoking? The US government has never, Listen to me, Never needed a warrant to spy on a foreign country. It doesn't even need one to spy on foreigners. That is why the FISA laws was passed.

      I have to ask seeing how you describe the threats to the constitution and advocate impeachment. Do you even understand the constitution? You sound both young and brainwashed which probably means your going to attempt to argue some meaning less point about wording that you don't know how ti interpret. Don
      • The issue has never been about spying on foreigners, or spying on foreigners. The issue is quite simply, that the government has taken it upon itself to begin spying on American citizens without due process or oversight. THAT one of the reasons that Qwest refused to grant the government access to its local switches.