House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance

vena writes "The Star Tribune reports the House and Senate today agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens proposed by the Total Information Awareness program. Additionally, negotiators agreed to halt all future funding on the program without extensive consultation with Congress."

Double standards

[flowerp]

Then, on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible (Echelon, Echelon II, etc...). Of course that's perfectly legitimate for them because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.

No TIA? No problem.

[cryptochrome]

They won't let the Pentagon spy on Americans? That's OK, I'm sure we can find somebody else to do it for us, and return the favor to them, since we are allowed to spy on foreigners.

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Just don't lie to me, pal. Not that I'd know if you were.

Skewed perspective?

[BWJones]

From the article: Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program, saying, "The Department of Defense still feels that it's a tool that can be used to alert us to terrorist acts before they occur." He added, "It's not a program that snoops into American citizens' privacy."

How can it not be a program that snoops into American citizens privacy? From past experience, I've found that the other issue is that once databases are available, they will be tapped for a variety of purposes not originally envisioned or intended.

Trading intelligence

[dtldl]

Still, this can easily be sidestepped by the old intelligence trick of you watch our citizens, we'll watch yours, then trading details with a friendly country.

Please stand up...

[aengblom]

Has anyone actually accomplished anything through e-mail? (Other than enlarging appendages, of course)

I think this amounts to more of "ignoring the massive amounts of nothingness" than a privacy win ;-)

Re:Double standards

[evilviper]

on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible [...] because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.

Well, you have to look at this in a reasonable way. First off, overseas, the laws are different. If the US could consult a foreign court in order to get a wire-tap or anything else similiar to the way it is done in the US, there might not be a need for Echelon. As it is, the laws in foreign countries are not as flexible. That means, they don't have much choice but to spy illegially.

Considering...

[nyc_paladin]

that corporations already monitor emails and internet activity of their employees where most people log on to the internet. This may not mean much except for those with AOL accounts.

not quite...

[joebeone]

This can still be over-ridden by an executive order of the president... which sounds likely in the "name of national security" and our orange alert level [whitehouse.gov].

Wonder what the Whitehouse thought?

[joebagodonuts]

The action was praised by Democrats and Republicans and by outside groups on both the political right and left.

Nice to see some soundness of mind (for a change)

Congress doesn't care about you

[jpnews]

They care about themselves. The executive branch is increasingly refusing to even CONSULT with Congress regarding these admittedly outrageous plans. But you'd be wrong to think that they're blocking this because they give a shit about your rights. They just want to be included... to make sure they have a hand in everything. In this case they're just exercising their right to refuse to fund ANY project in an attempt to get the WH to play ball with them. Otherwise they're going to take their ball and bat and go home, I guess.

Pessimistic

[Bendebecker]

'agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens'
Maybe they did it not in the interests of the public but simply because they don't want the FBI reading their email. It just seems more likely to me that, as a group, they are motivated more by self-interest than anything else.

Re:Excellent news!

[Smallpond]

It would be excellent news if Poindexter didn't have a track record
of lying to Congress about what he was up to. Maybe they can find
a good military officer, a colonel maybe, to make those reports
to Congress.

If I hold my hands in front of my face, you can't see me

Re:Please stand up...

[cK-Gunslinger]

Maybe, but that's kinda like saying that the majority of phone calls are personal and of no consequence to national security. That may be true, but you still don't want anyone listening in. Privacy is privacy. Would you let the government put a camera in your house, even if it was only trained on a dusty corner of the floor? Just because the information is inconsequential, doesn't mean its not yours alone.

Big Brother never Sleeps

[jazman_777]

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Most of us are snoozing while Big Brother is hatching all sorts of nefarious plots to own us.

Re:About time...

[pla]

please tell Tom Daschle to stop suggesting that we are not protected from terrorists if you don't want the government to be able to do anything about it.

We don't *NEED* protection from terrorists, and the measures enacted so far have done *nothing* but strip us of the very conveniences and freedoms we would like to protect.

You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True. But how often did we experience such attacks *prior* to the WTC attack? And, even if we *did* expect something since that time, why would anyone bother? Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Coming to Maple Street"? That about covers it.

As much as I hate the "if we don't blah, the terrorists have already won", our attourney general, and the OHS, and TIA, all *embody* the ultimate goals of any potential terrorists. Why should *real* terrorists waste their time and effort doing what we will willingly, even beggingly, do to ourselves? Personally, I'd rather risk a quick death less likely than getting struck by lightning, than have the afforementioned whack-jobs supposedly "protecting" us make a long and sedate life not worth living. But then, I don't consider myself a sheep. If you like having Ashcroft herd you into a nice "secure" detention cells, by all means beg for more. But leave me the hell out of your plans.

Re:Double standards

[blibbleblobble]

"It [echelon] hardly affects privacy of the American people"

Interestingly, that was one of the reasons that PGP export was allowed: American companies operating abroad had to use easily-breakable encryption, becuase it was all they were allowed to take to their worldwide offices. Of course, that meant that the government of any country they operated in could decrypt their comms, and tip-off native companies in competition with them.

Not that the US would ever sink to such depths... *cough*arms-sales-contracts*cough*

Doesn't Go Far Enough

[PingXao]

What scares me about all this is that in the future they can start this activity by just repealing the legislation that prohibits this surveillance in the first place. Someone needs to step up and get a consensus that this is flat-out unconstitutional and declare it as such, and make it clear that this kind of surveillance will never be allowed. Furthermore, anyone who proposes such a program should be expelled from the House or the Senate for violating their oath.

Re:About time...

[Total_Wimp]

We still won something very valuable. After 9/11 *everything* was going through without so much as a question. At least now our elected representatives are saying, "hold on a minute," instead of just rolling over. The victory is that someone, somewhere is remembering that we have something called rights and they're at least taking the time to see if they apply.

TW

Re:Excellent news!

[skion_filrod]

It depends on if you are an American citizen or not:

"The program could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted against non-U.S. citizens."

Then again, how do they know that you are an American citizen without reading your email and checking you up?

yea, right

[frovingslosh]

So now they are not even going to admit they read our e-mail?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[praksys]

Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point?

Yes they do feel entitled, and they have been doing it for some time - at least since the end of WWII. How do you think they get all those voice intercepts that have been playing at the UN recently?

Really it shouldn't be that surprising that the rights established by the US constitution, or US legislation, don't apply to non-citizens who are not in the US. It would be kinda weird if they did. The US is not the world government yet.

Re:Greetings, from most of the world

[aengblom]

Your dictionary ruins my post. You're no fun. Slashdot is not a place for "facts". Please leave! :-)

No, but seriously, I think there is something missing there. A double standard is a standard which is applied inconsistently among consistent parties. (It's a double standard if men and women are treated differently in the workplace because they should be judged on their ability to do their job. It's not a double standard to have more stalls in a womens bathroom, because it actually takes longer per person to do ones duty . )

Because States are -- at their most basic levels -- cooperatives to protect the security of a group of people, then one would reason that it is quite legitimate to gather intelligence about other "cooperatives" because they are not "consitent" (They differ in a way that is relevant to the standard). On that basis, I have very relevant differences from the British person.

Now, if the U.S. demanded other countries to cease their spying -- THAT would be a double standard.

Re:Congress doesn't care about you

[Anonymous Coward]

Senators and Congresspersons are just as vulnerable to these insane surveillance proposals as anyone else. And since the military is answerable to the executive branch, if I were a minority member of Congress (Democrats now, perhaps the Republicans in four or eight years) I would be particularly worried that these tools would be used to prop up whomever held the White House, now or in the future. They're just as concerned about their rights as you are about yours.

I've known a few Representatives; they really do try to do what they consider as best for their constituents. Sometimes, it's just that the most visible of their constituents are big corporations and special-interest groups. But they're certainly not interested in giving up their rights to some giant Pentagon surveillance apparatus any more than you are.

Dont Jump To Conclusions

[nurb432]

While this may seem like a victory for personal privacy, lets wait until the war starts to be sure it sticks.

Congress has been known to often go back on their decisions, when the american peoples rights are concerned... and rarely the correct direction.

Re:About time...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sneaky thing is that you may not know if your freedoms have been lost.

Let's take privacy. Under Patriot your librarian is required to provide your borrowing record if the gov't asks -- and the library is FORBIDDEN from notifying you or anyone else.

Re:Double standards

[Sylver Dragon]

Then, on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible (Echelon, Echelon II, etc...). Of course that's perfectly legitimate for them because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.

You do realize that the US govenment exists to protect the people of the US, right? Sorry, if you're not a US citizen, you really shouldn't expect the US government to defend you, unless you are important to US interests.

Re:About time...

[pla]

Do you know anybody who has?

Arrested and sent to Cuba, no. Greatly inconvenienced to no gain for anyone, yes. The leader of the Green party in my state cannot currently fly because of thinly veiled attempts to silence political dissent. Along with several hundred (that we know of) similarly harmless people who have no means of getting off the transportation blacklist created entirely through illegal and due-process-denying means.


What great conveniences and freedoms have you personally given up because of John Ashcroft?

Shall I go over the bill of rights one at a time? Let's see... Privacy, speech, religion, secure in my home, search and seizure, state's rights, using military for domestic law enforcement... And those just from off the top of my head. I could dig deeper.


but at least Ashcroft hasn't been murdering entire religous sects and pointing machine guns at innocent 6 year olds.

True enough. Reno seems to have made that sufficiently unpopular that Ashcroft hasn't (yet) dared continue her work.


Oh, and quit with the damn *stars* around words. You look like a damn fool.

Ah, good ol' ad hominem, the last resort of those with no better point to make. Yes, I agree, I should use actual HTML tags in this medium. Having used USENET long before the web came around, however, I have an old habit that has proven difficult to break. To go so far as saying it makes me look like a fool, however? I doubt it.

Re:Not quite over yet

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot [reference.com] - 1. A foolish or stupid person.

moron [reference.com] - 1. A stupid person; a dolt.

Looks like Bush Jr. qualifies there.


dork [reference.com] - 1. Slang. A stupid, inept, or foolish person. 2. Vulgar Slang. The penis.

Bush, Sr., was by your own words intelligent, and therefore that negates this, unless you meant the latter definition, in which case I thought he had one, but maybe I was mistaken about his particular features.


So one cannot be intelligent and yet be foolish or inept in some way? I suppose then either Bush, Sr. isn't intelligent or meant to lose his re-election to the presidency.

asshole [reference.com] - 2. A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.

In my mind, this includes people who try to force others into using only older definitions of words or belittle them when they don't use the strictest definitions. Language grows, people who don't grow with it should shut the hell up.

Re:Not quite over yet

[dvdeug]

idiot [reference.com] - A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.

moron [reference.com] - A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.

Bush, Jr., may not be the best public speaker, but he does not fit the above definitions.

Gee, you think it's possible he wasn't using the above definitions?

dork [reference.com] - 1. Slang. A stupid, inept, or foolish person. 2. Vulgar Slang. The penis.

Bush, Sr., was by your own words intelligent,

But that doesn't prevent him from being inept or foolish.

fool [reference.com] - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

Yeah, you described Clinton well there.

Cute. My side's wise and intellegent, but your side's full of fools and idiots. Maybe you should open your eyes and actually look at these people; there's fools and idiots, wise men and geniuses on both sides.

Re:About time...

[Darby]

I take EVERYTHING my government tells me with a large amount of cynicism and suspicion.

As is your duty as a citizen of a (supposedly) free society.

Call me paranoid or a wacko

No. I'll call you a patriot since that is what you are by being "eternally vigilant".
It's sad that so many people don't realise that going along with your government right or wrong isn't patriotism. It's treason.

Re:Double standards

[Victor Tramp]

yay! found it

First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out -
Because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out -
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
And there was no-one left
To speak out for me.

Pastor Niemöller, 1938

thank you for playing..

Re:not too sure...

[knobmaker]

I hate to say it, but I would characterize your definition of "ex post facto" as the reassuring version. What I worry about is the redefinition of crimes that already exist. For example, treason is currently illegal. It seems all too plausible to suppose that at some future date, acts which are not now considered treasonous may be redefined as high crimes. In fact, an argument can be made that this has already happened in the case of the so-called American Taliban. That poor confused idiot went over there to fight the infidels for Allah back when our government was praising the Taliban for stopping opium cultivation. Our government was cheerfully giving those freaks over 40 million bucks and a bunch of attaboys.

Next thing he knows, he's arrested for treason, even though it's really doubtful he had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, and so far as I know, no one saw him shooting at Americans.

I know, I know. It would still be unConstitutional to arrest a citizen for things that weren't technically illegal when he did them. Unfortunately, this seems not to matter too much to the Justice Department these days, since the Supreme Court has become a rubber stamp for various political agendas. Expedience seems to be more important than justice. After all, We're At War tm.