White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now 262
austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.
How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How do they know? (Score:1, Interesting)
I just don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever?
Oh, yeah, he wants us to not sue Verizon, AT&T, whoever. Well, sorry guys, you had a responsibility, as citizens of the USA, to tell the government no. I mean, WTF, corporations run this country anyway...
Tapping the future. (Score:1, Interesting)
Corporate intrest (Score:3, Interesting)
~Dan
What do you expect with a secret government? (Score:1, Interesting)
The framework is already being built: http://www.metagovernment.org/ [metagovernment.org]
I'm sure that website is "wiretapped"
Re:Corporate intrest (Score:4, Interesting)
First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts. That goes WAY beyond the issues of private commerce between individuals and recordings-producers.
With that said; what the fux do you think DRM *is* except a way to "wiretap" the private individual (aka. customer). Without judicial review. Unilaterally.
Personally I think it's a violation of RICO and monopolistic to enforce law through technology when the issues of fair-use are not resolved by a court. That's another rant though.
Resume? (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole issue of the US gov. spying on .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why such spying has resumed, or hasn't stopped, is because its an election year.
And that should be obvious.
Is this against the constitution of the united states? Absolutely, as it is an intent to invade privacy in order to deceive.
This is nothing new as even the "Declaration of Independence" identifies government abuse of its citizens, even being specific.
To All: When was the last time you read it?
The end of the Afghan war (Score:2, Interesting)
The war in the Afghanistan ended not by the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The true end of the war was on 9/11. It was the logical final of supporting and financing the religious fanatics around the world.
At the same time it was a wrongful attack on the civilian targets which forever changed the social and political climate in the USA. Like the defeat of Germany in 1918 brought radicalism and extremism decades later, the same way 9/11 will bring the certain political realities for years to come.
What happens in Iraq, Kosovo, the USA itself is the message which hurt American people send to the world and to themselves: "We can be as cruel, ruthless, nasty just about the same as the outside world was to us. Even more so. Much much more."
There is nothing new in this phenomena. Sometimes people are surprised why the leadership of the USSR did not want accept some good economics ideas from the West. But they forget that Leonid Brezhnev was a general during the WW2. He was part of the battle for Crimea. He was among few survivors of the most ferocious artillery barrage during human history at Malays Zemlya.
It is difficult to expect a senseful decisions from traumatized people. The crime that was committed against the great nation on 9/11 will be felt by the generations to come.
The New York City was not only the achievement of the USA. It was the part of the humankind heritage. That is why its destruction changed the humankind. Inevitably to the worse.
Re:Resuming wiretaps (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I know, it's a totally made up scenario. But with things going the way they are, that scenario could one day become very real. Take this moment to drop an email to your elected representatives and demand an end to this nonsense.
Re:How do they know? (Score:1, Interesting)
The house would have been happy to extend "Protect America" but not make it permanent. Bush said he would veto an extension.
In reality, I believe the situation boils down to the Bush administration not wanting the paper trail they get with the FISA court where you have to ask, and you are always told yes, but they've made a paper trail of what you've asked to monitor.
It is pretty clear that right now all conversations going through the phone systems are recorded. Some are erased after an hour, some are erased after a year. I'm not even sure this is a bad thing --- it might have been pretty useful to have a copy of all phone calls made in the USA for the 3 days prior to 9/11.
This being slashdot, we should talk about how we'd do it, not how it is a profound intrusion into our privacy, or how the gubberment is lying to us.
Re:How do they know? (Score:1, Interesting)
If they are not able to get a warrant, then who exactly are they spying on?
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the White House line and its a lie. Existing authorizations continue to be in force for a year. That takes us past the next inauguration.
The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.
The issue here is not providing immunity to the telcos, it is providing immunity to the Administration. They want to be able to shred all the evidence of their criminal activities before a Democrat takes over. And they are willing to hold the security of the country hostage till they get their way.
Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing. Bush's approval ratings dropped by ten points to 19%. The wiretap issue was gone after a single media cycle.
Re:It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped (Score:3, Interesting)
Much easier if you shipped the Brits to the USA to listen and then ask them if they heard anything interesting
BUT the main thing is, it looks like they've even stopped bothering to go through the proper motions. And that should worry the people in the USA (and people elsewhere because the USA is the most powerful nation and willing to unilaterally use that power for bad reasons).
When the people in power regard their _subjects_ with such contempt that they even stop putting on a "quality show", then it makes you wonder what's next.
Re:Well that answers the immunity question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're wrong, something quite significant has come out of this: Bush has proved himself wrong. The gov't has been, and still is, saying that without this warrantless wiretapping, we are no longer safe. By calling their bluff, they forced Bush to say that he would veto the bill if it didn't include telecom immunity. In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public! If this wiretapping is so instrumental to our safety, why would he threaten a veto, or in this case, let the legislation expire?
AG agrees wiretaps are illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Glen Greenwald has been on this beat for a long time now. Read more about Mukasy's recent admissionhere [salon.com].
Re:Well that answers the immunity question... (Score:2, Interesting)
You miss the point of this gambit.
You know the old saying: When you owe the bank a million bucks, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion bucks, the bank has a problem.
Well, when the telcos are liable for $1M in fines, nobody has a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1B in fines, the telcos have a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1T in fines, the government (as in all three branches -- the courts, the DoJ, and the legislators) has a problem.
The financial penalties to which the telcos were exposed, and the jail time to which Administration, government, and telco employees were vulnerable, were already so sky-high that retroactive immunity was on the table. Every telco with the possible exception of Qwest would have been instantly put in Chapter 7 bankruptcy; lock the doors, nobody comes in to work the next day, shareholders and bondholders alike all wiped out. Everything gets sold for pennies on the dollar, probably to some upstart like Google.
That might be a great scenario for us geeks, but that's an unacceptable outcome if you're a telco executive. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any telco lobbyist. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any Congressman or Senator who depends on telco cash to get elected.
Now read the statutes and see how much bigger the penalties get when it's wilful. Publicly flouting the law doesn't make the issue of retroactive immunity moot -- it makes it a requirement.
Re:Resuming wiretaps (Score:3, Interesting)
If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?
Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
He means that Bush's argument goes something like this:
1. The warrantless wiretapping program is essential for our national security.
2. We must not let it expire and we must enhance its regulation or else the country will be unsafe.
3. Oh and by the way, we could use retro-active immunity for the telcos in order to ensure their cooperation.
His focus when speaking to the American people has been on #1 and #2, in essence playing the "fear card".
By threatening to veto a bill that provides #1 and prevents #2 (his primary argument), just because it does not contain #3 (an auxiliary argument), he is conveying the message that retro-active immunity is more important than national security itself.
Now, you can argue -- as you you seem to do in your comment -- that it is Bush's opinion that retro-active immunity is essential for national security, and that may very well be the case. However, whether it is more important than having the program in the first place is debatable, and understood by many to be an indefensible position; and at the very least gives the appearance of a strawman to the first two arguments I mentioned.
-dZ.
Re: Impeachment.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush -definitely- needs the scar on his record. You figure - Clinton got an impeachment over much less.