House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance 260
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."
Finally, someone in congress read the constituion (Score:5, Interesting)
How much you want to bet this gets tacked on to the next "patriot" style bill?
TIA clothing available... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not quite over yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Skewed perspective? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Interesting)
Not double standards.
The double standard is if Britain watches over the U.S. similarly and then we "exchange" the information about each other's population
Ummm, what? (Score:2, Interesting)
*cough* Bull$hit *cough*
Of course it "snoops" into American citizens' privacy, that's the primary mission of DARPA and TIA.
It's like saying the gun I'm pointing at you won't kill you.
Uhmmm.... what are "lawful" military operations? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a middle-eastern last name, does that mean I'm going to be watched?
I would say more, but I'm liable to start on a rant that could start a whole mess of arguments I'm not interested in pursuing.
not too sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.
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 ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens
For once, a reason to thank my senator (Score:5, Interesting)
I appreciated his quote from the article,
"Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."
WHAT THE FSCK? (Score:4, Interesting)
Greeeeeeeeeeat. I LUV this country.
Re:WHAT THE FSCK? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite, it just means that they still need to get search warrants before they start reading their e-mail (inside the US anyway - once it leaves the US it's fair game for the NSA).
I hope this doesn't mean... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.computerbytesman.com/tia/ [computerbytesman.com]
(Link for creepy logo only! Well, the cached pages are kind of interesting too.)
Americans ?! (Score:5, Interesting)
So, American agencies have some limitations on how they may spy on American citizens. Likewise UK agencies may not spy on UK subjects. Fair enough, until those two agree to swap notes, so US spies on Brits (freely and legally) and the Brits spy on the yankees (freely and legally).
I think we need some international treaty, on the level of the Geneva convention, that limits the sharing of "intelligence" information to the level that would have been legal to obtain if it had been done by local authorities. And strong (death?) penalties to those who break the convention.
Well, I am (still?) allowed to dream...
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.
What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.
I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.
Re:Not quite over yet (Score:5, Interesting)
And he'd be an idiot to veto his own budget bill; that almost never happens.
Good god. THINK about who you're talking about. GWB IS and idiot. Really. He is an honest to god moron. I wish I could recall the commentator who said it...in the local paper several weeks ago was an item by a CONSERVATIVE commentator who spent some time at the White House covering GW and buds. He indicated that Bush lacks any and all curiousity about anything that he is ignorant of (cultures, technology, etc). He doesn't read - except for the bible and THAT doesn't count for shit. He barely made it through college, there by virtue of his father's coattails. His FATHER, though a dork, was intelligent. Clinton, though a fool, was frickin brilliant. Bush junior, well, let's face it. He is Cletus from the Simpson's.
Re:A sigh of relief (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens
That is correct. The DOD is tasked with foreign intelligence collection (authorized under the U.S. Code, but I don't remember the section). They are specifically prohibited from collecting any intelligence ON or ABOUT any U.S. Citizen, resident, or corporation/business by the 4th Amendment, another part of the U.S. Code (don't remember which) and DOD Regulation 5240.1R
Each branch of the military also has its own regulations that take into account specific situations pertinent to that particular branch
To collect any intel on or about a U.S. citizen, resident, or business, the collecting activity requires a waiver from the Attorney General, which is not easy to come by. Of course they could always collect first and ask for permission later, but unless they can prove that collecting that intelligence on that person helped avert a major disaster (like an assasination or destruction of a military base) then you are in very deep s#@!.
Thus, the DOD would need legislative backing to legally collect intelligence on U.S. citizens. This looks like it could be winner on that.
The New Cold War (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, What I am saying is that now only is this the new cold war, but the Old Cold War Warriors are back witha vengence. Rumsfield, McNamara.
The only good thing I can see about all of this is that the country will experience another revolution (like the 60's following the 50's) and maybe this action that congress took is a first step.
I would like to hear comment from the rest of you
Re:Excellent news! (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought seriously about that once...all I would need is a single spam filter. If There wasn't a PGP tagline in the message, it would get permanently deleted from my inbox. Since spammers don't use PGP, BAM! Instant spam-free zone.
Unfortunately, those I communicate with don't even know what encryption is, much less use it. Thus, I would also lose mail from friends and family.
Hmmm...perhaps a PGP Awareness Campaign is in order?
And did congress stop Poindexter last time? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pointy's resume says it all: "finds innovative solutions to difficult problems". What's to innovative about lying?
=brianAnthrax? Snipers? (Score:3, Interesting)
You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True.
You probably don't live in the DC area, but we remember the anthrax attacks following 9/11. Still unsolved, aren't they? Then we had these bastard snipers killing a dozen unsuspecting people
Mentioned rarely, these attacks were likely all the work of Americans. So was Oklahoma City. The closest thing to a 9/11 follow-up was the "shoe bomber" Reid, a British subject. (Apparently they're worried about him in jail [cnn.com].) Hunting for "suspicious foreigners" would have done no good in any of these. Nor would the unpatriotic Patriot Act. I'm not certain what would have helped, but I am sure they're headed in the wrong direction, enacting the longtime wish list of certain interest groups without regard to the present problem.
We don't want to live in a police state, both because it would suck and because the terrorists would love it.
Now we have a code red or orange or tangerine, I forget, isn't that dandy. I understood the defcon system [fas.org] better.
Not really going away (Score:2, Interesting)
Who needs Congressional funding? Poindexter can just smuggle drugs instead. It worked for the CIA and Las Contras, whom Poindexter was inextricably associated with during the free-flowing cocaine days of the 1980's. But hey, I can see why nobody remembers any of this, what with the more important stories like the President's blow job, the numerous baby-fell-in-the-well stories, O.J., Jon Benet Ramsey, Martha Stewart, etc...
This neatly covers those two in one article... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll quote the first paragraph:
Does that answer your specific questions?
I like UserFriendly's take on it... (Score:3, Interesting)
You may keep strong encryption out of the hands of the general public, because they have no real interest in it. But for a determined group, the cat is out of the bag many years ago. Throwing together some AES + SHA + Diffie-Hellman reference code I could probably make a secure tool before the end of business today. And I'm hardly an expert on the subject...
Kjella
Re:About time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a quote from Echelon Watch's FAQ: [aclu.org]
So, what exactly is this article about? What have we won?
For the still-skeptical people amoung us, here is a warning from the EU government to e-mail users [bbc.co.uk], originally stated in it's original form here [eu.int]. You can also find an EU resolution on the matter here [eu.int]
If you are not of the faint of heart, you can see the highly detailed 200 page report into the system here [eu.int] [pdf doc]. This report was originally reported in the news mid September, 2001. Obviously due to other news items, it wasn't widely reported and the whole affair was convienently swept under the carpet.
Re:This neatly covers those two in one article... (Score:1, Interesting)
By the way, you might [lightparty.com] want [snopes.com] to check [politechbot.com] your facts [truthorfiction.com] before you post a link to a Geocities site!
Re:John Poindexter (Score:2, Interesting)
I really wonder about the sincerity of legislators passing legislation that specifies how Poindexter shall not abuse the power he's given in the same law. Naivete doesn't explain it as well as plausible deniability.
They should either remove Poindexter, or just admit he has the keys to our bedrooms and can be expected to take photos.
ECHELON anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's some background taken from the ECHELON FAQ at www.cipherwar.com:
The Scientific and Technical Options Assessment program office (STOA) of the European Parliament commissioned two reports which describe ECHELON's activities. These reports unearthed a startling amount of evidence, which suggests that ECHELON's powers may have been underestimated. The first report, entitled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control," suggested that ECHELON primarily targeted civilians.
This report found that:
"The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like Memex to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information servicers.