Eavesdropping Helpful Against Terrorist Plot [UPDATED] 486
AcidPenguin9873 writes "The New York Times reports that the U.S. government's ability to eavesdrop on personal communications helped break up a terrorist plot in Germany. The intercepted phone calls and emails revealed a connection between the plotters and a breakaway cell of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad Union. What does this mean for the future of privacy in personal communications? From the article: '[Director of national intelligence Mike McConnell's] remarks also represent part of intensifying effort by Bush administration officials to make permanent a law that is scheduled to expire in about five months. Without the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. McConnell said the nation would lose "50 percent of our ability to track, understand and know about these terrorists, what they're doing to train, what they're doing to recruit and what they're doing to try to get into this country.'" Update: 09/13 12:59 GMT by J : See followup story.
So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Helping against terror plots (Score:2, Insightful)
You know what also helps stop terror plots? Turning a country into a giant maximum security prison. Maybe we could have a study that tests that out.
Yes, violating privacy can help law enforcement. No ****. People oppose any given measure because they don't consider that tradeoff justifiable, NOT because they are unsure if it's useful. (Though in fairness, I guess a lot of people feel compelled to go all the way and think they have to consider a method *ineffective* before they'll oppose it, even where they can't rationally justify that...)
Those who would give up... (Score:3, Insightful)
--Benjamin Franklin
I'll take freedom over wiretapping, please. (Score:1, Insightful)
We've simply got to find ways to stop terrorism without giving up our own liberties. It's the whole giving-up-freedom-for-security-have-neither thing.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen to that. What people don't seem to get in this day and age is that there is no such thing as zero risk. No matter how thoroughly you screen, no matter how thoroughly you eavesdrop, eventually someone somehow will get through. Therefore we need to say, "What is an acceptable risk, taking into account the fact that the lower we set the threshold, the more civil liberties and conveniences we'll be giving up?"
That is what is missing here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did we find the plot BEFORE the Germans got involved?
Was this plot uncovered through basic German police work?
or
Was this plot uncovered through our massive surveillance program of all communications that we can get into?
I'm a little bit suspicious as to the TIMING of this announcement, too.
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin (disputed, possibly Richard Jackson)
Evesdropping helped, but was the new law necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
NY Times did not report that (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't make it false (or true), but it's much different than a statement of fact.
Who's against eavesdropping with oversight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but what about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those who would give up... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not all past quotes are applicable in modern times. The sentiment expressed by this quote, however, rings true for all times.
Targeted or dragnet? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're claiming this was part of a Carnivore/Echelon style dragnet, then hurray for catching the one tuna in a net bursting with dolphins.
The article mentions listening in on the members of a specific terrorist group, so I'm taking that to mean they already had suspects, and surveilling these suspects allowed them to discover the plot. I.e. the targeted search that is good.
However you can tell in articles like this that they want you to believe that this justifies extended surveillance powers, in particular the we-should-be-able-to-spy-on-anyone-any-time kind.
The article also mentions FISA and how Bush is trying to extend the law that will expire. It is very important to remember that the whole problem with Bush's program was that he couldn't even be bothered to go to the FISA court to get back-dated warrants. The best explanation for why that I've heard so far being that the program was spying on so many people that it was infeasible to actually get a warrant for each one. If they can't take the time to get a warrant for each one, then they certainly couldn't have taken the time to establish probably cause that any of these people were terrorists, and ergo they wouldn't have been granted by FISA anyway.
So look at this how it is -- a success for law enforcement, of the traditional pre-USAPATRIOT and pre-NSA-wiretapping kind. Don't see it how they want you too -- as justification for removing what few of our privacy protections remain, and justification for allowing the Executive branch and law enforcement to operate outside the 4th Ammendment.
Re:Those who would give up... (Score:2, Insightful)
the problem is lack of warrants (Score:2, Insightful)
Cut the crap and you'll be taken seriously. (Score:5, Insightful)
The term 'occupation' indicates control over territory. We don't 'occupy' Cuba. We have a naval base there, but we don't control the rest of the country. (Unless you think that Castro is just a U.S. puppet. Or something.) To be honest, the world would probably be a significantly safer place if the U.S. did have significant control over several of the countries on that list, but we don't.
You undermine your own point through exaggeration and inflated rhetoric.
Re:Those who would give up... (Score:2, Insightful)
The powers that this administration has seized upon are down right scary. The ability to declare anyone an enemy combatant, the ability to wiretap any phone, without judicial oversight, various other constitutional violations, the list goes on. History has frowned upon the interment of Japanese during WW2, and rationing, while a bit of a discomfort, doesn't quite equate with an erosion of our natural human rights, some of which were guaranteed but the first 10 amendments to the constitution. How do you think history will view this chapter in history?
SHIFTING THE FOCUS! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the discussion by opponents has not been against eavesdropping, but that with current law, there is no OVERSIGHT by any governmental agency of the eavesdropping. Prior laws always allowed eavesdropping
I'm too lazy to provide links, but it has been documented both that a) during the time of the court-order requirement, almost no court order requests were denied (something like 2 in 17,000); and b) during the non-court order law there were some thousands of eavesdropping events that were shown to have no connection to terrorism.
The reason, plain and simple, for articles like this is that the US administration is fearmongering to push the strategy that they do not want oversight into what they are doing. This is a bad thing. Democracy dies behind closed doors. Don't be fooled. Keep the focus where it should be!
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cut the crap and you'll be taken seriously. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't? So if China had a military base, say in Houston, TX, you would not feel occupied? You'd feel safer?
YOU may not think it is an occupation, but I've visited more than a few dozen countries with U.S. military bases (including Poland, where I have a home not far from the U.S. base in Poznan) and the residents don't understand the point of U.S. troops on their soil, not even for defensive purposes. Almost all of those countries have their own military bodies, and many of the residents near those bases are uncertain about Imperialist nations presenting a military presence in their country. This is from direct conversations I've had in peaceful nations.
The term 'occupation' indicates control over territory.
I can basically agree with this, but I don't think that's what the other countries necessarily feel. Just because U.S. troops might have been invited by past regimes, does not meant that they are there because the citizens of a nation wanted them there. Occupation may be by force, or it might be welcomed because a leader who uses force welcomed the new regime for whatever purpose. In either way, those directly facing the military base as a neighbor are not usually happy with the troops that are there.
We don't 'occupy' Cuba. We have a naval base there, but we don't control the rest of the country. (Unless you think that Castro is just a U.S. puppet. Or something.) To be honest, the world would probably be a significantly safer place if the U.S. did have significant control over several of the countries on that list, but we don't.
Occupation does not generally mean direct control by the troops or the military. In many cases, the control comes from the leaders of the occupying country over the leaders of the occupied country, even if it is not open contact with communique available to the citizens of either countries.
The U.S. doesn't have control over any nation it tried to maintain control over. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, so why would you feel that the world would be a better place if the U.S. had tried to control anyone else?
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
The semi-secret (they've been leaked, but aren't officially talked about) agreements between the US and other countries are two-way.
The British are heavily involved, and the way it works is that the British are given wiretap access to US calls, which is legal under British law - though it breaks US law, the violation is occurring in Britain, beyond the reach of US law. They then report back to the US government what they heard. We do the same for their domestic calls, and give them the results.
It's a nasty little mess.
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the increase in safety cannot be gained without a decrease in essential liberty, then my choice would be to accept the increased risk, not trade away my freedom.
And especially in the case of "terrorism" there is NO valid reason to destroy any liberty in the name of safety, as the risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent. It's barely a blip if you look at the actual risk numbers. The only effect on my life terrorism has had is the massive overreaction creating problems for me - which is far worse than the terrorism itself could ever hope to be.
Re:Sorry, but what about... (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to mod you up, but I've been dying to use this quote from George Washington--
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of libery abused to licentiousness."
Given the way things are happening, his thought almost seems prophetic.
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would also like to point out that your argument is specious... Proper checks include simple things like getting a court order to run the wire-taps.
You are confusing power that is acceptable under the constitution and power that isn't. It is quite possible and easy to remain safe AND to remain constitutional.
Please turn in your voter card, you are unqualified to participate in our democracy
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not making up the rules. It is called the Constitution.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand, but it seems that people are so interested in handcuffing our government that they confuse foreign intelligence with domestic spying and try to shut it all down.
After the attacks that occurred six years ago today, everyone was asking, "how did this happen?", "why were we not able to stop it?", and "what are we going to do to prevent it from happening again?". I remember administration staffers being grilled by congressional committees pointing out things like a PDB titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack the US" and Michael Moore documentaries trying to place blame rather than trying to find resolutions. Can you blame the administration for taking action?
Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm. They equate evesdropping and datamining to kicking down doors and rummaging through drawers looking for something that might be considered illegal. They are convinced that a government that taps calls made to Afghanistan is the same as Orwell's Big Brother. Just read some of the comments posted here that are comparing intercepting German emails to Turkey to turning the US into a barbed wire laden police state. No one is suggesting that. If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?
I fear that these people are not aware of what we are up against. There are attacks being planned that make Beslan [wikipedia.org] look like a school yard scuffle. I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable. Just because I don't care if the government listens to my phone call to Dominoes doesn't mean I'll be OK with having to pass through a checkpoint to buy groceries. The idea is to allow the government do their job with as little inconvenience to me as possible. The idea that someone may be eavesdropping (although the chances are virtually nil) will not change what I say or limit me in the least. I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted [wikipedia.org] and there is hell to pay.
BTW, I like your sig! The sentiment is very similar to my own.
Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind. I'm just tired of the brownshirt downmodding that I see here way too often. If you disagree, don't silence me, tell me why and state your case. That's what free speech is all about!
These people are liars (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorist-free East Germany (Score:4, Insightful)
Spying on our own people without even a warrant is terrorism. It's political control by fear and threat of force.
Under Bush, the terrorists have won everything, because Bush is a terrorist. Even in Germany, people aren't safe from Bush's terrorism. Bush is indeed the greatest terrorist of them all. By any measure, including by body count (the way terrorists terrorize) and by how much liberty he's destroyed.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assure you it does, and it does. And a government that intends to relegate the vast majority of the population to the status of "labor pool" has an interest in what *everybody* has to say about it. The best way to stop revolutionary dissent is catching it while it's still dinner-table conversation. For instance, imagine if the British had known of a certain little Tea Party that was being planned while it was still just in the stages of two guy chatting about a nice idea. Had the British colonial powers had ubiquitous eavesdropping throughout the colonial lands, history would have turned out very, very differently. Of course, your sentiments indicate that you trust the government implicitly, and will likely consider this view to be crazy left wing hippie talk.
You can't be serious? You're either too young or too dumb to understand the concept of a slippery slope. You're also obviously unaware of the fact that more innocent people die in car crashes every year than died in terrorist attacks in all of the 20 century. Where are the billions in declaring war on people who don't wear seat belts? Would you support police cameras in your garage to check that you were wearing your seatbelt before you left your driveway? Perspective is a wonderful thing. Pity you don't have any.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't blame them for taking action in general, but its the types of actions that they take that I take issue with. I don't want to handcuff the government per se, but rather I want there to be leash or fence beyond which it cannot operate except in times of dire need. The systems we had in place prior to the events of 6 years ago were adequate to forewarn us of the impending attack, if only the individual intelligence agencies had the means to share the data they had collected (as discovered during that same post-attack questioning you mentioned). To bridge this communications gap, the Department of Homeland Defense was created - if that department was doing only the job it was created for in that respect, I believe we'd be fine.
Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm.
I realize this, my beef with the system comes from the fact that all of these systems have little to no non-executive oversight (FISA circumvention, etc), so the potential for abuse by a lone individual with an agenda is much higher.
If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?
Having the locks on the doors is my choice. I could remove them if I so chose. I can't just tell anyone who may or may not be monitoring my use of the telecommunications infrastructure to cut it out.
I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable.
I'm of the opinion, given my above responses, that giving up our rights in unnecessary - I think the old maxim "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" holds true here. It is often bandied about that we fight to preserve our way of life - but are not these rights a fundamental part of that way of life? Further, when the time comes that we no longer need those protections, who is to say that the government will give those rights we traded back? Further still, if one listens to how certain pundits ("far right personalities" if you will) want to change the world into a fascist state, then removing any of our rights is a step in that direction regardless of the reasons for which they are relinquished, and should be opposed.
I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.
The scary part is, with all the secrecy surrounding many of these abuses (and indeed, this administration's policies in general), we don't know what, if any, more secret abuses might have taken (or might be taking!) place. Also, in the case of a lone individual, you are only looking at a conspiracy of one, and that's a tough nut to crack. I believe this in itself is a good argument for a more transparent government.
Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind.
Not at all!
Re:Which also means... (Score:2, Insightful)
But that is very noble of you to so willingly give up freedoms that you have never exercised yourself.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not against the government using FISA to intercept communications to fight CRIME ('terrorism' is vague, and overly subjective) but I am AGAINST the government doing so without warrants, going against their own prescribed checks and balances. The FISA court was set up to handle this type of thing. The FISA court was sidestepped by the current administration for years before it came to light. The government should do what it can to maintain national security, however it should do so LEGALLY.Oh really? Proof? Maybe you ought to report that to someone if you have information of a national security nature. Or are you just using vague scare tactics to push policy?I, and many others, are NOT willing.Really? Hell to pay? Voluntary resignations and the firing/court martials of low level NCOs is hardly hell being paid. Maybe if someone responsible for OKing various abuses were ever charged, or [gasp] impeached then your sentiment would be comforting. From what we have seen thus far, a wrist slap is the most anyone has gotten. Case in point: although the FISA court was the ONLY legal way to tap certain international calls it was sidestepped completely by this administration. In total defiance of the law. Name one conviction of someone involved in ordering or executing those wiretaps without going through FISA. Zero accountability. It matters not whether the President, his legal council, or anyone other than SCOTUS thought the law should be different. It was defined, it was breached as defined, not one bit of accountability.
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is what is missing here. (Score:3, Insightful)
But American companies operating in foreign countries are bound by LOCAL laws. Does American government and legal system like it or not is irrelevant.
Considering the way modern phone calls are routed I would not be surprised if this was tapped on Level3, Global Crossing or someone's else network in Germany or while delivering a call from Germany to Germany. From there on it is subject to German privacy legislation and the American company in question by violating it has forfeighted the terms of its telecoms license and its right to operate its network which it has built at a cost of 5-10 billion.
While I can understand your aim to be funny, you have missed the basic issue in question in its entirety.
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I think we mostly agree on how things *should* work, I'm just saying the accountability part hasn't been functioning well in recent years. I am citing a specific abuse of a law, and pointing out that despite press coverage there has been zero criminal accountability. I'm not even going to argue whether those taps were valid or useful or anything, just that they were obtained outside the prescribed process. No one was fired, no one went to jail, no one has even been charged. You can't say the press will hold wayward officials accountable and therefore we need not worry when we have a glaring example that shows, thus far anyway, that accountability isn't happening. I will cede that once the press exposed the program the administration was forced to start doing things above board again. But since no one got punished for breaking the law what did they learn from this? "Don't get caught." That's not the lesson we want, we want them to realize there are penalties for breaking the law, so that they don't break it in the first place.
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a joke? I don't see a
Uh, we were attacked because we are doing are best to stop the world from being under control of a Taliban style government. We were attacked because we do not beat our women into submission and force them to wear full body burkas. We were attacked because our men are not forced to wear beards and we can hit the carpet and pray five times a day or NOT. We were attacked because we do our best to defend freedom and fight against those who threaten it. We were attacked not because of the choices we make, but because we are allowed to make them and we fight for the rights of others to make their own choices!
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was trying to fly from Oakland to Detroit.
I could not produce a drivers license.
I did not drive to the airport.
I did not intend to drive the plane.
I did not intend to drive on vacation.
I was not allowed to proceed. I HAD TO go get a special
semi - strip seach before I was handed papers that would let me travel.
This was December 2006, in the United States of America.
MY right to travel without papers was infringed.
You have no point.
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for knowing someone who died, if you live in the U.S., do you know anyone who was directly affected by the 9/11 attack? If not directly, how about at 1 degree of separation? For me, I know a handful of people directly and many more at 1 degree of separation, and I'm not even an American. An event that killed millions of people would have a direct effect, in terms of at least one death, on just about every community in the country.That probably implies that you haven't really thought about what the numbers mean. If you look at 2.5% and think how much less than 100% it is, then you're kind of missing the point. Rather, look at the next 100 people you see, and imagine 2.5 of them dead as the result of a single incident; extrapolate that to every group of 100 people in the country. Of course, that's not how the deaths would actually be distributed, but it might help get your head around what 2.5% really means in this case.
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Re:So..? (Score:3, Insightful)
Something you fail to understand is that the "government" doesn't care, but the individual people, who are employed by the government, certainly do. Information is power, and people who want power tend to be in the position to have access to that information.
It took years for J. Edgar Hoover's files to become publicly known because he used them primarily to blackmail people for his own personal gain (though I'm sure he convinced himself he was doing it for the good of the country). Your fantasy that any abuse of power is immediately made public by some well-meaning worker is contradicted by countless historical examples.
yes, and despite all the alarmism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Time To Kill (Score:3, Insightful)
We've had lots of bombs go off. Some, like the "bomb" in the USS Maine in Cuba that launched our takeover of the Philipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, didn't even really exist. Europe has been bombed by separatists and nationalists for decades. Somehow they managed not to build torture centers overseas. At least, most didn't. And they still managed to maintain constitutional government.
As the rest of the world has been saying with clenched teeth, grow. up. already. We aren't the first country to ever have been bombed. Stop wetting your pants. Get a grip, you pansies. And kindly stop killing any and all brown people who seem to be sitting on oil. Kinda obvious, ya know, how we determine who is "evil".
The attackers never used phones, fax machines, email, or snail mail. The security we had before 9-11 was more than adequate; the Bushies and the Freeh-crippled FBI simply did not listen to the warnings. The bin Ladens were made, so were the men training to only fly, not land, planes. The Bush was warned about planes being used as bombs, he convened with Jesus to think about the poor unborn stem cells that week instead. The FBI under Freeh fired the entire middle level of intel analysis under his fetish of getting rid of "useless" bureaucrats. He consolidated intel decisions into upper levels, his levels, and they ignored the warnings because they were undermanned.
There will be always people with bombs, even if they are eternally in your imagination. And, say, what about that pesky anthrax terrorist that hit Democrats? Osama bin Laden? What about the militia groups, armed to the teeth to bring revolution to the socialists in Washington, the groups that spawned the only successful native terrorist act in Oklahoma City? Are we rounding THOSE loons up yet? The entire nation of Saudi Arabia, ya know, the actual country that attacked us on 9-11? Why aren't we at "war" with anyone who actually attacked us?
Re:The price isn't worth paying (Score:3, Insightful)