Eavesdropping Helpful Against Terrorist Plot [UPDATED]

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.

Well they would say that, wouldnt they?

[TechnoBunny]

Obviously even more anti-privacy laws will make the US even safer, and do more to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to even less than the...erm...none over the last 6 years.....

I'm sure it is

[DoctorPepper]

Just like eavesdropping on conversations helped the KGB find and arrest dissidents in the (former) Soviet Union.

Which we appear to be heading towards faster and faster with each passing day!

Fuck them

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather risk the 1:1000000000000 chance I'd be killed in a terror attack by some fuckface than let some other dickhead listen to all of my fucking phonecalls. Fuck them.

Which also means...

[workindev]

Those who would give up non-essential liberty to purchase permanent safety will have both essential liberty and safety.

--Workindev

Re:So..?

[Reason58]

Does this mean that you unwilling to give up any liberty in exchange for safety?

I'm willing to give up a small amount of freedom for a large gain in safety. I am not willing to give up a large amount of freedom for something as effective as the "War on drugs". Especially when I know those new governmental powers will just be turned on me and my children in very short order (if they aren't already).

Re:So..?

[DarkVader]

Because the German authorities also cooperate to intercept communications by Americans - it's a mutual aid agreement. The British actually are used more often, and are the ones listening to US domestic and international calls - it's a way of getting around the Constitution. In exchange, we monitor British traffic for them.

And if you read the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have any provisions limiting it to apply only to Americans. It is prohibitions on what the government may do, and they don't have national restrictions, they apply to the actions of the government.

Unasked/Unanswered Question

[plsuh]

TFA does not ask the right question, and McConnell does not answer it:

"Was the surveillance covered by the relatively uncontroversial provisions for surveillance conducted overseas, was it covered by the relatively uncontroversial provisions where the surveillance is reviewed by the appropriate court, or was it done under the provisions for warrantless wiretaps and data mining that are very controversial?"

Are McConnell and the Bush administration trying to run a public relations gambit by association again? Are they trying to use the fact that electronic surveillance of some sort, possibly based on relatively uncontroversial provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, led to the arrests to get the controversial provisions of the FISA extended as well? I recognize that this may be classified information that should not be publicly disseminated. However, our elected representatives should be asking these questions and have a right to get truthful, complete, and non-evasive answers from the executve branch. If they do receive evasive answers, then the assumption should be that these programs are not necessary and should not be renewed.

--Paul

Re:So..?

[jahudabudy]

I agree. I want my government spying on foreign nationals they think might be a threat of some sort. Of course, I would also want my government to actively prevent other countries from surveilling me and my fellow citizens. If I were German, I'd be pretty unhappy that my government was apparently okay with allowing the Americans to monitor me if they pleased.

Adapt or die

[HW_Hack]

All this means is that terrorists will adapt to the new environment. Most likley heavily encrypted email. And to confuse the governments they could randomly send outs millions of heavily encrypted "spam" emails as decoys. And as usual they could always "go retro" and use short-wave radio with encrypted messages.

This "electronic vacuum" method will catch a few fish while also trampling on our rights. But these groups will always evolve. If all the $$$ used in technology - manpower - analysis were steered to creating an effective network of agents (feet on the ground) I believe the results would be more effective without trampling our basic freedoms.

We do need the capabilities to intercept messages - decode etc. --- but this shotgun method is really just a lazy-mans way to go about it.

Re:So..?

[workindev]

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.

Ok, you will need to define what you consider "essential" liberty. (You will note that my original question was about any liberty, not essential liberty). Is driving on whatever side of the road at whatever speed you choose an "essential" liberty? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against traffic accidents? Is a lifestyle that uses as big a "carbon footprint" as you want an "essential" liberty"? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against climate change?

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.

I highly doubt that you really believe this. It would be exceedingly foolish if you did. Has the thought crossed your head the "risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent" because we have willingly given up some freedoms to protect us against it? I hate standing in the security line at the airport as much as the next guy, but I would much rather give up 15 minutes of my time and have to take my shoes off every once in a while than tear the metal detectors down and let anybody bring anything onto the planes because the risk is "virtually nonexistent". If we did that, the threat wouldn't be "virtually nonexistent" for much longer.