FBI Hid Patriot Act Abuses 243
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired is reporting that the FBI hid Patriot Act abuses with retroactive and flawed subpoenas, and used them to illegally acquire phone and credit card records. There were at least 11 retroactive, 'blanket' subpoenas that were signed by top counter-terrorism officials, some of which sought information the FBI is not allowed to have. The FBI's Communication Analysis Unit also had secret contracts with AT&T, Verizon and MCI, and abused National Security Letters by issuing subpoenas based on fake emergencies."
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
None.
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The case is closed - the government will abuse any power it has access to.
As Bruce Schneider says, what we do not need is security at the expense of liberty and privacy - we need liberty, security, *and* privacy.
And the beat goes on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Power. Will. Be. Abused. (Score:5, Insightful)
By removing checks and balances (which is currently done in almost all democracies all over the world for no reason) we see an upsurge of abuse.
So nothing to see here, please move along.
Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, fsck. Guess I'll have to quit my job, move to Montana and live out in the middle of the woods where no one can find me...wait? What did you say? The Unabomber. Sh*t. Time to move to Australia. Is there a big demand for sysadmins in Australia?
With great power comes great responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
To that end, the expansion of police powers at the top levels of the government is not necessarily a bad thing. When we look at 9/11 and the failure of communication between various law enforcement agencies, it is clear that we cannot have a law enforcement system where one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. The Patriot Act, for all its faults, is trying to address this need by opening up and sharing the law enforcement databases so that vital information is not overlooked or ignored simply because it is not available. The implementation has left a lot to be desired, though.
When we start to expand federal powers, such as like and under the Patriot Act, great care must be taken to provide oversight capable of taking the power wielder to task. Normally, you'd expect this to be Congress. But much more fundamentally, you would expect the President (the Chief Executive) to show some restraint and good sense in the execution of the expanded powers. What we have unfortunately seen is that the President has not seen fit to restrain the DHS and has not forced common sense and common decency as policy. Rather, the departments have run wild creating new and more intrusive rights for themselves at the expense of American freedoms.
We say we are the beacon of the world, but we have not lived up to that moniker here at home, and we have destroyed our good name abroad. We must start our transformation immediately back into that beacon, and we must start at home.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
None.
Funny you should say this. I'm getting ready to write a piece on how it seems more and more, incompetency and failure are rewarded while honesty and hard work are denigrated.
Using this administration is much too easy. Look at all the generals who have been honest about their assessments of how poorly run the occupation of Iraq has been, the mismanagement and theft of billions of dollars, the lack of equipment for troops and a whole host of other issues irrespective of the lies that were used to justify the occupation. Where are those generals now? Forced into retirement.
How about Katrina? "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." Brownie completely fails at his job and gets rewarded by being a consultant to examine why he failed doing his previous job.
Outside the administration, look at Countrywide Financial or Citigroup. Countrywide's CEO uses insider information to sell his stock before the subprime mess hits and makes millions. Investors are left holding the bag, wondering if the company is going to go bankrupt.
Citigroup's former CEO, Charlie Prince, got multi-million bonuses for running the company into the ground, wiping out years worth of profits and having to have the company rescued by foreign governments lest it collapsed.
HP, Enron, and a whole host of other companies follow the same pattern. Reward the incompetent failures with buckets of money and act as if they're doing people a favor, all the while, the folks who do the real work, the grunts on the front line, get the shaft. Every time.
Naw, I'm not bitter. What would make you think that?
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:4, Insightful)
If their legal council couldn't bother to verify what was going on before bending over and accepting this, then there's a whole other issue that needs to be dealt with. But that's besides the point. They (the telcos) did something heinously wrong, and now they deserve to be punished.
Re:Happens all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose here is to make the American public toe the line, and for that purpose, convictions are not necessary. The mere threat of action, with the associated social embarrassment and financial hardship, will do nicely.
Allow only NSA to have this capability (Score:5, Insightful)
OTH, the DOJ has ALWAYS abused their powers. ALWAYS. WHy? We have combined the ability to arrest, with the mentality to be a guarddog, the ethics of a Republican, and now with the ability to listen in on all. No wonder that they will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goals. This is a group that now believes the ends justify the means. Very bad set-up. That is why DOJ must not have these spying abilities.
Finally, the DOD is now looking through our lines. The problem is not that they are likely to use it against a citizen, but that they will use the knowledge to affect their future. IOW, they can now listen in on conversations between gov. ppl. This is part of the industrial-military complex that also needs to be stopped.
Whats the point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't, that is what laws are for. Break the law and you have done something illegal, it is no more difficult than that. That is why companies have legal departments. Appeared valid to their legal department? ALL of their legal departments? Nonsense.
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
"I come in peace", it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this...
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford,
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard", said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Re:Well (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
What bothers me about your comment is you would consider our founding fathers terrorism to be shameful.
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's OK, though (Score:3, Insightful)
The Homeland Security people say they've laid a serious hurtin' on the terrorists, they just can't tell us anything about it for obvious reasons. And there have been no more attacks on American soil, which absolutely proves that they're doing everything right because otherwise all those terrorists they keep telling us about would be eating our babies right this very minute.
So it's all OK and we should just quit worrying, because even though they legalized everything short of grabbing people off the street and exporting them to other countries for torture (Oh, wait a minute...) it would all be in our best interest because they're the good guys.
So I guess what I'm saying is: lay off the FBI, because they know best and you guys are just making their job harder by pointing out that they're abusing their powers. And that's just wrong. Better we live on our knees than die on our feet and all that, because if there's another attack then the terrorists have won and the United States will have turned into a police state for nothing.
And wouldn't that suck...
Re:Whats the point anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allow only NSA to have this capability (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not directly perhaps, but they frequently did not wear uniforms and hid among civilians, putting them at risk. At the very least, that made them "unlawful combatants" by modern terminology. Also, the boatload of tea dumped into Boston harbour was hardly a military target.
Re:And? (Score:-1, Insightful)
It seems to me that someone [wikipedia.org] has talked about this earlier =)
Oh, I forgot. Some dictators said he was smart, so he must be eeeevil.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
-nB
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:telco immunity vindicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument goes something like this:
The claim is that if companies had the right/obligation to say something to the effect of "Hmmm
And, if they tell you what they've been up to, then the terrorists will know what our capabilities are, and we'll never catch them.
It really is an astonishingly scary example of exactly why the erosion of the checks and balances that everyone said would happen, were a bad idea in the first place. The government gave themselves sweeping (and, arguably unconstitutional) powers after 9/11 -- at the time, everyone said it would lead to abuses. It has.
The current strategy of the government is to prevent it from coming under scrutiny, and to ensure those that they recruited to help with this stuff have no consequences -- because if you were allowed to know everything that would happen, you'd be appalled and they'd look like even more like people who ran rough shod over the laws. They don't want everyone to know what they've been doing.
Cheers
Re:Allow only NSA to have this capability (Score:-1, Insightful)
There is no such thing as the Republican Party we used to know. It has been infiltrated and taken over by a group of crooked elites that are hellbent on amassing control and wealth to the detriment of EVERYONE else; you, me and every uninformed idiot who continues voting for them blindly.
The Dems aren't a lot better, granted, but at least they still hold on to some small bit of morality and humanity... for now.
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozillo(the former Countrywide CEO that you are talking about) made a planned sale of stock(and soon to expire options) meeting the standards of Countrywide's compensation committee and the SEC. He spent 30 plus years building the company and sold when the stock was doing incredibly well, but it's not like he was hiding anything(because there are rules in place preventing him from hiding anything):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=CFC [yahoo.com]
If I had the choice of exercising some options and making millions, or doing nothing and making nothing, I would exercise those options. Maybe the process that granted him those options needs improvement, but there isn't really anything offensive about him exercising them(unless you hate people making large sums of money).
Chuck Prince's compensation may be offensive, but somebody was on the other side of the negotiations and is at least as responsible as he is(not to mention everybody else involved in mismanaging Citigroup). Castigating him personally feels good, but it isn't like he was operating in some black hole, a company as large and diverse as Citigroup is subject to constant, intense scrutiny from both investors and regulators. They all failed right along with him.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
It was not a military target, but that was before the war began.
A better argument would go to Washington's (in)famous crossing of the Deleware and attacking Trenton on Christmas (Eve?), violating the rules of war as they existed at the time.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
All a matter of perspective. (Winning also helps, as the winners are the ones that write the history books.) One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
1 in 300 =/ 30 in 1000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally, I suspect that the Civil War provides better examples of very deliberate terrorism. Both sides committed acts and I don't know of either side acting to stop its own. (And I'm not even going to get into the distinction between terrorism and "total war", there.)
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at every constitutional revolution or rebellion we can say we agree with (French, American, etc) and try to argue that the "good guys" didn't use terrorism.
Re:This is why we have the second amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:4, Insightful)
The pre-existing FISA laws maintain a desirable level of what Antonin Scalia (and apparently others) called "calculated inefficiency".
Here's a great quote I found trying to find out more about what Scalia was talking about (different justice, same sentiment):
"In his famous Myers dissent Justice Louis D. *Brandeis said: "The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three department, to save the people from autocracy" (p. 293). This is a classic expression of the eighteenth century hope that freedom could be secured by calculated inefficiency in government. A more modern hope is that freedom would be better served with more efficiency and more democratic accountability. We are still haunted by an ancient riddle: How far can we build up effective government before it topples over into despotism? How much inefficiency can we afford without slipping into disaster?" (bold=mine)
http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-powers?cat=biz-fin [answers.com]
I think that really says it all.. the FBI, et al, want unfettered access to basically everything, and there are probably some in the organization who are pushing for it, and their heart really is in the right place, but that's just not good enough. How efficient can they become before it "topples over into despotism"? I'd rather not find out.
Just a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thought.
Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, like the TV show Cops.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
The money has to come from somewhere - so you present a false and dishonest argument with the statement "... unless you hate people making large sums of money..." - and the answer is YES - in cases like these, I hate people being rewarded for incompetence while many, many others are being deprived in exchange for hard work. It goes against my sense of right and wrong. Furthermore; it is counterproductive to the basis of our entire economic system to reward incompetent people inappropriately, at the expense of others who are productive. It discourages the promotion of competence, it discourages productivity, and wastes tremendous amounts of resources. I think I would much rather see schools, roads, and hospitals built on the revenues of the income tax, had that money been instead, invested into expanding the business, and paid towards salaries of workers, rather than cynically socked away into securities that were taxed at the idiotic "capital gains" rate; where they pretty much just go into this guy's swimming pools, luxury condos, and bank accounts in the Caymans, and produce nothing of value or note for anybody except the one guy, who managed to fuck things up for everyone else.
So yeah, I'd much rather see hard working employees who have a stake in the success of their company being rewarded with huge sums of money, than to see assholes like this getting bailed out with golden parachutes on the way to their next golf game.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoting the AP article:
I quote again, from the article: