Slashdot Log In
FBI Hid Patriot Act Abuses
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Mar 14, 2008 07:11 AM
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired is reporting that the FBI hid Patriot Act abuses with retroactive and flawed subpoenas, and used them to illegally acquire phone and credit card records. There were at least 11 retroactive, 'blanket' subpoenas that were signed by top counter-terrorism officials, some of which sought information the FBI is not allowed to have. The FBI's Communication Analysis Unit also had secret contracts with AT&T, Verizon and MCI, and abused National Security Letters by issuing subpoenas based on fake emergencies."
Related Stories
Submission: FBI Hid Patriot Act Abuses by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
None.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whew. Much better.
But really. It's all for the greater good.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yarp.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
-nB
Parent
Just a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thought.
Parent
Re:And? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
What bothers me about your comment is you would consider our founding fathers terrorism to be shameful.
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kinda like when Israel and the US were the only abstaining votes at the UN when they were deciding what the definition should be... US backed Israel because most definitions would have applied to them, and us.
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not directly perhaps, but they frequently did not wear uniforms and hid among civilians, putting them at risk. At the very least, that made them "unlawful combatants" by modern terminology. Also, the boatload of tea dumped into Boston harbour was hardly a military target.
Parent
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)
Against other Europeans it most certanly did. Parlays, breaks for lunch, meeting on the field of honor, not targeting officers, etc. All poor tactics, but adhered to by the British because of the rules of war.
They were dicks once they won the wars to be sure.
I never did. However, I fail to understand how one would be offended by the concept. Did they not target the civilian population (Loyalists)? Isn't that the only true definition of a terrorist, one who targets a civilian population to sway their political opinion?
Parent
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally, I suspect that the Civil War provides better examples of very deliberate terrorism. Both sides committed acts and I don't know of either side acting to stop its own. (And I'm not even going to get into the distinction between terrorism and "total war", there.)
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
None.
Funny you should say this. I'm getting ready to write a piece on how it seems more and more, incompetency and failure are rewarded while honesty and hard work are denigrated.
Using this administration is much too easy. Look at all the generals who have been honest about their assessments of how poorly run the occupation of Iraq has been, the mismanagement and theft of billions of dollars, the lack of equipment for troops and a whole host of other issues irrespective of the lies that were used to justify the occupation. Where are those generals now? Forced into retirement.
How about Katrina? "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." Brownie completely fails at his job and gets rewarded by being a consultant to examine why he failed doing his previous job.
Outside the administration, look at Countrywide Financial or Citigroup. Countrywide's CEO uses insider information to sell his stock before the subprime mess hits and makes millions. Investors are left holding the bag, wondering if the company is going to go bankrupt.
Citigroup's former CEO, Charlie Prince, got multi-million bonuses for running the company into the ground, wiping out years worth of profits and having to have the company rescued by foreign governments lest it collapsed.
HP, Enron, and a whole host of other companies follow the same pattern. Reward the incompetent failures with buckets of money and act as if they're doing people a favor, all the while, the folks who do the real work, the grunts on the front line, get the shaft. Every time.
Naw, I'm not bitter. What would make you think that?
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
And people wonder why geezers like me are cynical. There was a book several decades ago called The Peter Principle [wikipedia.org]. The premise was "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." It explains why things are so messed up.
The last Governor [wikipedia.org] here in Illinois is in a Federal prison for bribery and other misconduct, another example of what you illustrate well in your comment.
Parent
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
Follow this link [atimes.com] about halfway down to see a list of officers, including generals, as of late 2005, who were forced out because of their honest views. Since that time, others, including the most recent resignation of Admiral Fallon, can be added to the list.
Certainly there are those in the above list who retired rather than wait to be forced out but the concept was the same: these were people who had long, distinguished track records of getting the job done but when they gave their honest opinions, they were told to leave or were forced out.
Parent
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The case is closed - the government will abuse any power it has access to.
As Bruce Schneider says, what we do not need is security at the expense of liberty and privacy - we need liberty, security, *and* privacy.
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, though, I think he meant Schneier.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
It's not hard to find the answer:The problem is when the government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed. As in, the governed are manipulated into allowing a shift of power from them to the government.
Parent
And the beat goes on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know why the FBI even bothers to try to hide its wrongdoing
If the Senate (and the President) have their way, this new FISA bill that provides RETROACTIVE immunity to the Telco's from prosecution will obviate any need for secrecy. I applaud the House for _their_ version, which renews most of the FISA provisions yet leaves out this Telco immunity nonsense.
As I have read, heard, and understand, the current FISA (and general litigation) provisions already protect businesses from legal action so long as they were complying with lawful requests for information by govern
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:4, Insightful)
The pre-existing FISA laws maintain a desirable level of what Antonin Scalia (and apparently others) called "calculated inefficiency".
Here's a great quote I found trying to find out more about what Scalia was talking about (different justice, same sentiment):
"In his famous Myers dissent Justice Louis D. *Brandeis said: "The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three department, to save the people from autocracy" (p. 293). This is a classic expression of the eighteenth century hope that freedom could be secured by calculated inefficiency in government. A more modern hope is that freedom would be better served with more efficiency and more democratic accountability. We are still haunted by an ancient riddle: How far can we build up effective government before it topples over into despotism? How much inefficiency can we afford without slipping into disaster?" (bold=mine)
http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-powers?cat=biz-fin [answers.com]
I think that really says it all.. the FBI, et al, want unfettered access to basically everything, and there are probably some in the organization who are pushing for it, and their heart really is in the right place, but that's just not good enough. How efficient can they become before it "topples over into despotism"? I'd rather not find out.
Parent
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoting the AP article:
I quote again, from the article:
Parent
Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:5, Interesting)
With one out of three people being a terrorist, I think we should all be gratefull that they are doing whatever it takes to get their jobs done:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html?=main [aclu.org]
Seriously, I said all along that they didn't care anything about catching terrorist...that it was just smoke and mirrors to monitor us. And low and behold, they will get to monitor us legally, as one out of three of us is a terrorist.
If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.
Transporter_ii
Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, fsck. Guess I'll have to quit my job, move to Montana and live out in the middle of the woods where no one can find me...wait? What did you say? The Unabomber. Sh*t. Time to move to Australia. Is there a big demand for sysadmins in Australia?
Parent
Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:5, Interesting)
Stupid? yep. Irresponsible? Yep. Terrorism? Only if damned near everyone I knew in highschool is a terrorist for doing similarly stupid and destructive crap.
Parent
Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, like the TV show Cops.
Parent
Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Power. Will. Be. Abused. (Score:5, Insightful)
By removing checks and balances (which is currently done in almost all democracies all over the world for no reason) we see an upsurge of abuse.
So nothing to see here, please move along.
This is why we have the second amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
With great power comes great responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
To that end, the expansion of police powers at the top levels of the government is not necessarily a bad thing. When we look at 9/11 and the failure of communication between various law enforcement agencies, it is clear that we cannot have a law enforcement system where one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. The Patriot Act, for all its faults, is trying to address this need by opening up and sharing the law enforcement databases so that vital information is not overlooked or ignored simply because it is not available. The implementation has left a lot to be desired, though.
When we start to expand federal powers, such as like and under the Patriot Act, great care must be taken to provide oversight capable of taking the power wielder to task. Normally, you'd expect this to be Congress. But much more fundamentally, you would expect the President (the Chief Executive) to show some restraint and good sense in the execution of the expanded powers. What we have unfortunately seen is that the President has not seen fit to restrain the DHS and has not forced common sense and common decency as policy. Rather, the departments have run wild creating new and more intrusive rights for themselves at the expense of American freedoms.
We say we are the beacon of the world, but we have not lived up to that moniker here at home, and we have destroyed our good name abroad. We must start our transformation immediately back into that beacon, and we must start at home.
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:4, Informative)
No, we do not. Most of what you say I agree with, but this I do not.
'Crime Prevention' is a misnomer that has given police departments carte blanch to do many of the things we see above. The government must investigate crime, and prosecute those responsible in a fair trial.
I have yet to see a police or law enforcement that has 'crime prevention' in it's charter, because it is impossible. Just as 'preventing terrorism' is, or 'suicide prevention'. If someone wants it to happen bad enough, no law enforcement agency can prevent it. Giving them the tools to 'prevent' what got us here to begin with. Give them the tools to find out what happened. Nothing more.
Parent
Allow only NSA to have this capability (Score:5, Insightful)
OTH, the DOJ has ALWAYS abused their powers. ALWAYS. WHy? We have combined the ability to arrest, with the mentality to be a guarddog, the ethics of a Republican, and now with the ability to listen in on all. No wonder that they will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goals. This is a group that now believes the ends justify the means. Very bad set-up. That is why DOJ must not have these spying abilities.
Finally, the DOD is now looking through our lines. The problem is not that they are likely to use it against a citizen, but that they will use the knowledge to affect their future. IOW, they can now listen in on conversations between gov. ppl. This is part of the industrial-military complex that also needs to be stopped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats the point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
"I come in peace", it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this...
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford,
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard", said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Parent
Re:Whats the point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's OK, though (Score:3, Insightful)
The Homeland Security people say they've laid a serious hurtin' on the terrorists, they just can't tell us anything about it for obvious reasons. And there have been no more attacks on American soil, which absolutely proves that they're doing everything right because otherwise all those terrorists they keep telling us about would be eating our babies right this very minute.
So it's all OK and we should just quit worrying, because even though they legalized everything short of grabbing people off the street and exporting them to other countries for torture (Oh, wait a minute...) it would all be in our best interest because they're the good guys.
So I guess what I'm saying is: lay off the FBI, because they know best and you guys are just making their job harder by pointing out that they're abusing their powers. And that's just wrong. Better we live on our knees than die on our feet and all that, because if there's another attack then the terrorists have won and the United States will have turned into a police state for nothing.
And wouldn't that suck...
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a big difference between being asked for communications to or from an internet account or phone and being given unfettered access to all provider traffic.
Parent
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:4, Insightful)
If their legal council couldn't bother to verify what was going on before bending over and accepting this, then there's a whole other issue that needs to be dealt with. But that's besides the point. They (the telcos) did something heinously wrong, and now they deserve to be punished.
Parent
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument goes something like this:
The claim is that if companies had the right/obligation to say something to the effect of "Hmmm
And, if they tell you what they've been up to, then the terrorists will know what our capabilities are, and we'll never catch them.
It really is an astonishingly scary example of exactly why the erosion of the checks and balances that everyone said would happen, were a bad idea in the first place. The government gave themselves sweeping (and, arguably unconstitutional) powers after 9/11 -- at the time, everyone said it would lead to abuses. It has.
The current strategy of the government is to prevent it from coming under scrutiny, and to ensure those that they recruited to help with this stuff have no consequences -- because if you were allowed to know everything that would happen, you'd be appalled and they'd look like even more like people who ran rough shod over the laws. They don't want everyone to know what they've been doing.
Cheers
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't, that is what laws are for. Break the law and you have done something illegal, it is no more difficult than that. That is why companies have legal departments. Appeared valid to their legal department? ALL of their legal departments? Nonsense.
Re:Happens all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose here is to make the American public toe the line, and for that purpose, convictions are not necessary. The mere threat of action, with the associated social embarrassment and financial hardship, will do nicely.
Parent