Slashdot Log In
As of October, FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Aug 22, 2008 04:34 PM
from the oh-that-pesky-4th-amendment dept.
from the oh-that-pesky-4th-amendment dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of any crime. As an editorial in the New York Times points out, this is a power that has a history of abuse. In times past, it was used to wiretap Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to spy on other civil rights and anti-war protesters."
As Dekortage points out, "Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion,' which the Justice Department denies."
Related Stories
Submission: FBI to Allow Warrantless Investigations in October 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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That sucks D: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That sucks D: (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush was right: The consitution is just a damn piece of paper. Don't count on it to protect you. Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes. Keep voting Dems, Reps or the lot like it and you will sink deeper and deeper in shit untill you are stuck and can't get out. Because then you are fucked. And it won't be pretty.
Parent
ammo box (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.
Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army [revcom.us], responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army [nytimes.com], based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged [wikipedia.org] officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.
Falcon
Parent
Re:ammo box (Score:5, Insightful)
People carying guns don't look innocent
They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a .22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.
Falcon
Parent
Re:ammo box (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.
The average American soldier probably doesn't have a problem considering an Iraqi civilian a 'terrorist', and therefore firing on him, but he might have a more difficult time buying the idea that a mass uprising of averge, everyday white Americans is "Al-Qaida in America".
Some things will be just too big to spin.
Parent
Re:That sucks D: (Score:5, Interesting)
Guns and homemade bombs worked pretty good against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes in Algeria, Viet Nam, Afghanistan (twice), and in Iraq. So yeah, let's imagine a scenario where the Feds try to impose some sort of dictatorship... you'd have an army of 500,000 active duty soldiers trying to suppress an technologically sophisticated and armed citizenry with 80 million rifles and god knows what sort of homemade contraptions. Good luck. Government by the consent of the governed is a statement of fact, not an ideal.
Parent
Re:That sucks D: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and just in time for the election, too. Big surprise.
Parent
We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Funny)
I am a criminal. That's why I use encryption. Same reason I have a gun.
Parent
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Funny)
Criminals of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!
Guns, check
Knives, check
Crypto, check
Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
Internet connection, check
Go! Go! Go!
Am I missing anything?
Oh yes:
Law abiding citizens of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!
Guns, check
Knives, check
Crypto, check
Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
Internet connection, check
Go! Go! Go!
Am I missing anything?
Parent
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.
You do not chase me because I run. I run because you chase me.
Parent
nothing to hide (Score:5, Informative)
Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom [findlaw.com].
Falcon
Parent
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Informative)
Oooh, do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights and how scared the citizens were of a big national government and that's why we first had the Articles of Confederation which were weak like a bad cup of coffee and now we have the Constitution which is sooooooooo being violated?!
Phew. That many 'ands' in a sentence is annoying.
IMHO (which, by the way, is never humble :-) ), our government was not intended to be a large overreaching government. Control was supposed to be retained by the people. Under the original Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government was more like an informal gathering, a club, per se. This didn't work out totally, as it was seen that a few uprisings, such as the Shays' Rebellion, could destroy the confederation.
The States sent delegates to fix the Articles, which the delegates ended up scrapping and instead creating the Constitution. However, I believe that some of this animosity towards large behemoths carried over. Look at the Bill of Rights, which were added after the Constitution was ratified. They in many instances reserve power to the people, and to the States. The federal government is thus limited in what it can do.
Even though the Bill of Rights was ratified after the Constitution was ratified, from what I understand, some States made the implied passage of the Bill of Rights a condition to their ratification of the Constitution.
Parent
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act? Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers employed terrorist tactics (for warfare at the time shooting from behind a tree instead of from a straight line in a field was the equivalent of using civilians for cover in today's warfare) So endorsing a return to their ideas of Rights is an implicit endorsement of fighting your government with terrorist tactics. It's not that far a stretch considering that asymetric warfare will be the only way to unseat the power elite in America should we as a society ever feel the need to do so. Voting between two brands of big government and centralized wealth, is a poor substitute for the kind of freedom this country was originally designed for. So at some point in the tightening of the DHS fist of security, accurately citing history will be a form of inciting terrorist acts.
Paranoia is my new litmus test for predictive accuracy.
Parent
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
How do I encrypt a conversation with my family? Use pig latin?
"iHay oneyHay! owHay asWay ourYay ayDay?"
When the FBI talks about spying they mean spying. They aren't going to stop at snooping your email. They're going to bug your phone. They're going to snoop your physical mail. They're going to go through your banking records. If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.
Parent
Re:Not the best plan (Score:5, Insightful)
no, they'll investigate specific people on an agenda.
That agenda might be making trouble for those who oppose policy, those who protest, those who question government statistics on economy, etc.
Parent
Re:Not the best plan (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact function of lots of people using encryption (or buying things in cash, or using anonymizers, etc.) is that an attacker (in this case, the FBI) can extract no information from the fact that you're using encryption (or whatever). They don't need to spread themselves thin, but it's no longer a useful "hey, this person might be up to trouble" flag.
I agree that this is good.
Parent
And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing.
That's right, nothing.
No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.
People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.
Parent
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.
He said, posting on slashdot.
But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt? The last time something like that happened, we were left with the bloodiest war in US history, and that was before the advent of a lot of the modern weapons of war. Write to their congressmen? I wrote to Harry Reid while I lived in Nevada, and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!
Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.
Parent
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, TV... truly the opiate of the masses!
I agree entirely: people need to get out there and get involved. When the system is breaking, fix it from within, not through violence.
That said, it seems that politicians become corrupt or unable to fight the corruption after joining the ranks of other politicians. Say you become a Congressman. You have a plan, and there is no compromise! Ya, sure. You realize that, to get anything done, you have to compromise, you have to trade favors. Not long after, you find compromise to be easy. A little longer still, and you become compromised yourself. Now, you are part of the problem. I don't say this to discourage (OK, maybe I say it because I'm discouraged), but to show the limits of what can happen. For a political uprising to work, it must truly be an uprising, involving all walks of life in this (US) country. Not a few disgruntled partisans, not one minority, but universal.
Back to my agreeing with your statement, this means the grass roots efforts must involve people from the suburbs, the inner cities, and the country-side; it must involve the blue collar and white collar workers; it must involve the many religions and the non-believers.
Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns. I hope it never comes to that. I fear that it might.
Parent
armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what?
I'd ask my nephew, but he's a Marine stationed in Iraq, however when I was in the army we were taught not to follow orders we thought were illegal or violated human rights. When sworn in, yes people are sworn in when they go into the military, people pledge to uphold the Constitution of the USA though.
Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween
I take it you've never been in the military but when I was in there were plenty of people who'd disobey any such order. Viet Nam had a number of examples of fragging [wikipedia.org] where unpopular officers had fragmentation grenades, where the name comes from, tossed at them by those under their command.
Falcon
Parent
Re:armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.
Which is presumably why the vast power of the United States military, supported by numerous allied nations, subdued Iraq and established a secure replacement government so quickly. Oh, wait, they still haven't quite done that, have they?
You seem to be confusing terrorism with asymmetric warfare. The two concepts, while often encountered together, are quite different.
You are also assuming that all that military and security power would willingly turn against its own people if it really came to the crunch. That seems unlikely, and it would only take a relatively small amount of resistance in military units or intelligence organisations to cause a great deal of damage. After all, that is why these groups take security so seriously when confronting other foes.
The really sad thing is that the US government (and those of many other nations) have basically talked themselves into the current madness by overreacting to a small number of isolated but high profile events, developing a culture of fear, and giving absurdy disproportionate emphasis and resources to vaguely defined goals that are somehow supposed to prevent any further high profile bad events. In other words, the terrorists have won, because now the government is doing their job for them and forcing people to change their behaviour out of fear. Meanwhile, orders of magnitude more innocent lives have been lost in the resulting conflicts than ever were in the original attacks. Even worse, orders of magnitude more damage has been done by wasting time, money and public awareness on assorted wars on abstract nouns instead of basic things like making roads safer, curing illnesses, heating the homes of the elderly in winter, and improving the education and opportunities of our kids so they don't go on to become bored and disillusioned enough to explore lives of crime in the first place, any of which alone would do more to improve the health and happiness of the nations than any military action or national security effort ever could.
Parent
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so you all know, posting indignant posts on slashdot doesn't count as defending your rights. Preaching to the converted != protest.
Parent
Trends shape history (Score:5, Interesting)
History is not made by individuals. History is made by trends. Specific individuals who are surfing at the leading edge of a trend may get the spotlight, and hence the credit, but really it was the trend that made the change, not the person.
The net effect of current trends is a lot of corruption in our government, plainly visible to the public, with a large collective yawn in response.
Sitting around shouting that people need to stand up and do something will not, in and of itself, create a trend of people standing up and doing something.
For that we will need something bigger. And more painful.
Parent
Regs don't trump the constitution. (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.
It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.
-jcr
COINTELPRO (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. [wikipedia.org] Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.
Parent
Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (Score:5, Insightful)
they're endangering the public
I think you've just hit upon what government doesn't ever want you to realize:
It is government itself that is the biggest threat to you, your family, and your freedom.
this is a power that has a history of abuse (from the summary)
Correction: The power itself is the abuse. How can a special "right" to bypass justice itself NOT be abuse? The concept of guilty before proven innocent -- in whatever slimy manifestation it appears -- is an attack on human rights before the discussion even started.
Parent
Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (Score:4, Insightful)
not legal, certainly not just, but sadly it is our current reality
Parent
WWJD (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.
Re:WWJD (Score:5, Funny)
I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.
I think his reaction would have been more along the lines of "Goodness, what is that peculiar blue box you stepped out of?"
Parent
Re:WWJD (Score:5, Funny)
He's an American. He'd ask about the DeLorean ;)
Parent
whoopie (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place? Karl Rove tells Congress to take their subpoena, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it right up their collective asses. Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.
Re:whoopie (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?
So it works like this:
Step 1: Do whatever you want to do.
Step 2: When Congress or the people complain, ignore or deny Step 1.
Step 3: Announce that you will do whatever it is you started in Step 1.
Step 4: What's the point in complaining, they're already doing it?
I'm sure there's profit in there somewhere.
Parent
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps [guardian.co.uk]
My history teacher pointed those out in 1997 and he wasn't thinking of the USA back then. I thought: come on, it can't be that easy! However, seeing what happens in the USA, I humbly have to retract that opinion.
What.The.FUCK (Score:4, Insightful)
You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this. While this is not - specifically - a function of FISA, the loosening of surveillance regulations it implied.
And they said, "We don't spy on Americans."
Right.
This is how it's supposed to work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist. Talk about a class war. Yeah, and they fucking won.
Nice guy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's big of him. He'll "allow" Congress to hold hearings? Who wears the pants in this family, anyways?
Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the last link about senators complaining:
Among their fears: Americans could be targeted in part based on their race, ethnicity or religion
and
Citing remarks earlier by Mukasey about the new rules, the spokesman said an investigation would not be opened based solely on a person's race, ethnicity or religion.
That isn't the problem. I'm glad that they are attempting to slow it down and stop it, but why does it have to boil down to racism for them to stop it? Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need the USSR back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Raise your hands, everyone who is surprised by this...
yeah, that's what I thought.
We need the old USSR back. As odd as this seems, there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness. I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things. I think that at least in part it's because we no longer have competition to compare and contrast our government's behavior to, so people are less apt to associate this kind of totalitarian behavior with The Evil Empire. As a result, we become The Evil Empire.
I'm not cheering for Russia as it stomps around in Georgia, mind you, but an odd side-effect of it might be that we start acting like the USA, rather than Trashcanistan.
I hope ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ob. Bash (Score:4, Funny)
Stormrider:
Stormrider: Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
Elzie_Ann: I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
*** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
FBI: We saw it anyway.
*** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )
This means one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet Union... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trapped (Score:5, Insightful)
If I use peaceful means, no one cares.
If I use violent means, people become martyrs and I am vilified.
Sometimes I feel like there is no solution to the current government's problem short of a revolution which will occur far down the road, long after I am gone, and that is rather frustrating.
Re:which the Justice Department denies (Score:4, Informative)
Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?
What about it? Government does not need reasonable suspicion to investigate you. It needs reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, and probable cause for an arrest or seizure. Some searches and seizures are investigations, but not all investigations are searches or seizures.
The Fourth Amendment, Article V, and the Fourteenth Amendment do not prevent the government from conducting investigations for any rational purpose it darn well pleases.
Parent
Re:There is still hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the democrats have certainly done all they can to reverse the trend in the last two years, from Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" all the way through congress "considering" a ban on lead in toys (what's to consider, guys?). I'm voting a straight "none of the above" ticket this time around, thanks.
Parent