FBI Hid Patriot Act Abuses

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."

Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist

[transporter_ii]

Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist

With one out of three people being a terrorist, I think we should all be gratefull that they are doing whatever it takes to get their jobs done:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html?=main [aclu.org]

Seriously, I said all along that they didn't care anything about catching terrorist...that it was just smoke and mirrors to monitor us. And low and behold, they will get to monitor us legally, as one out of three of us is a terrorist.

If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.

Transporter_ii

This is why we have the second amendment

[91degrees]

So - all you guys with guns, who maintain that they can protect us from a corrupt government. Where are you? We need some protecting from a corrupt government.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Power itself is the abuse. I can't understand how people are so easily convinced otherwise. Forget what you've been taught, and listen to human nature. How is it possible that a special "right" to employ physical force against peaceful human beings -- the defining prerequisite of all government -- is NOT abuse?

Think about it. You're not a bad person, are you? You don't employ theft, fraud, or physical force against others, do you? Then why on earth would a third party (government) need that special right to employ coercion against you, if you pose no threat to them?

There's a reason why they need that special right, and it's not because you're a blind follower, willing to blindly obey their commands.

It's because you are not.

Re:And?

[EXMSFT]

That would require them admitting they did wrong. It's much easier to claim national security is at risk.

Feels a sneeze coming on.... ahh... ahh... McCarthy!

Whew. Much better.

But really. It's all for the greater good.

Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist

[molex333]

This is my favorite. Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown was blocked from flying while on his way home from an 8-month deployment in Iraq. He was listed as a suspected terrorist due to a previous incident in which gunpowder was detected on his boots, most likely a residue of a previous tour in Iraq. I was actually held for 2 hours once because one of the people in airport security because I smelt like gasoline. I was returning home from a business trip and I had to fill up a rental car with gas. There was some gasoline residue on my shoes. Do I really need to be searched and treated like a criminal for filling up a car with gas?

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Gewalt]

MODS! I call you out! Parent post was NOT funny. Oh, it deserves the +5 rating, but in no way was it funny.

Insightful? Sure.

Informative? Maybe.

Funny? Hell no.

/sigh... well, there goes that karma.

Re:telco immunity vindicated?

[DrLang21]

I would take this a step further. If their legal council bent over and accepted this, they should be examined by the Bar Association for incompetancy.

Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist

[Jimmy King]

Sadly, that sounds about accurate. A co-worker of my wife has a husband who is doing federal time and is labeled as a domestic terrorist. You know what he did? He and a couple friends tried to blow up a port-a-potty in the middle of the night.

Stupid? yep. Irresponsible? Yep. Terrorism? Only if damned near everyone I knew in highschool is a terrorist for doing similarly stupid and destructive crap.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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." - by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday March 14, @08:41AM (#22749774)

I agree, 110%... & trust me, so does everyone else!

This nation's got the "worst of the worst" in place & @ ALL levels, not just government, but in the workplace!

E.G.-> Who the hell needs 100 "VP's" in place with 6-8 figure salaries? They don't do that much work anyhow, & anybody that's been in "Korporate Amerika" nowadays + the past decade now has seen it & knows what I mean... They do 1/2 the work, & NOT of a production nature, & get paid 3x-5x what workers who actually DO productive work get shit!

Hey - stockholders are being ROBBED by their "boards of directors" imo on that note as well!

E.G.-> Why on erarth do politicians get their pensions, which is their entire pay for the rest of their lives MIND YOU, when they get out of office for?

QUESTION - Did the folks @ enron?? NO! Did the people who GM & Ford burned on health care & pensions get theirs??? NO!!

Man - Like you said:

"WTF!"

WE ALL FEEL THAT WAY!

Signed.

Disgusted U.S. taxpayer

Re:In corporate America, government checks on you.

[mb108]

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597 [privacyinternational.org]

I don't see a whole lot of green and blue on this map. Greece is doing pretty good. Granted, it's disappointing that USA ranks right up their with Russia and China, but you can't really expect much privacy anywhere unless you take steps to ensure it yourself (GPG, Tor, Freenet, etc).

IMHO the trend we're seeing is the downside of moving to an information-based society: if information is free for the taking, you betcha they're going to take it. Governments have been spying on citizens since there were governments, regardless of any policy-based protections; getting all wired up just makes things easier.

Re:And?

[nschubach]

Oh, I'm sure it would have been. But let's (just for a moment) assume that the British government then, is like the current US government. They would have sent an "elite" force of troops to strategically capture Adams, Jefferson, Washington, et al. and have them disappear overnight. Anyone that spoke up against such crimes would also be silenced. The "New World Order" US government has become the tyrannical king.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[PONA-Boy]

I don't know why the FBI even bothers to try to hide its wrongdoing

If the Senate (and the President) have their way, this new FISA bill that provides RETROACTIVE immunity to the Telco's from prosecution will obviate any need for secrecy. I applaud the House for _their_ version, which renews most of the FISA provisions yet leaves out this Telco immunity nonsense.

As I have read, heard, and understand, the current FISA (and general litigation) provisions already protect businesses from legal action so long as they were complying with lawful requests for information by government agencies. The current Executive administration is just trying to squeak out after getting its hand caught in the proverbial cookie jar.

There is a balance...

[haakondahl]

...and we know what happens when it is set too far in the direction of limiting the actions of the FBI about "information they aren't allowed to have". Try googling "Gorelick wall". For a really interesting take on coverups, read about how the woman whose policies made 9/11 possible also sat on the 9/11 Commission. Interesting.

Re:And?

[eclectic4]

Therein lies the rub. I have still yet to find a true definition of what a terrorist is. Ask a gov official and he'll usually balk. I have been told that this is difficult to do as most definitions would then apply the "terrorist" tag to themselves...

Kinda like when Israel and the US were the only abstaining votes at the UN when they were deciding what the definition should be... US backed Israel because most definitions would have applied to them, and us.

Re:And?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The British Empire didn't get where it did by obeying rules of warfare.

Against other Europeans it most certanly did. Parlays, breaks for lunch, meeting on the field of honor, not targeting officers, etc. All poor tactics, but adhered to by the British because of the rules of war.

What they did to the Irish, Scots, Indians, Africans, etc, would make your blood curl.

They were dicks once they won the wars to be sure.

Calling Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc terrorists is something I would expect a 4th grade history teacher to do or maybe just a 4th grader.

I never did. However, I fail to understand how one would be offended by the concept. Did they not target the civilian population (Loyalists)? Isn't that the only true definition of a terrorist, one who targets a civilian population to sway their political opinion?