The NSA: Never Not Watching 568
Trailrunner7 writes "For many observers of the privacy and surveillance landscape, the revelation by The Guardian that the FBI received a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to require Verizon to turn over to the National Security Agency piles of call metadata on all calls on its network probably felt like someone telling them that water is wet. There have been any number of signals in the last few years that this kind of surveillance and data collection was going on, little indications that the United States government was not just spying on its own citizens, but doing so on a scale that would dwarf anything that all but the most paranoid would imagine." And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."
Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
It's what authorizes legitimate government. Anyone think this is authorized? 4th amendment? Anyone?
Obama? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I think we know who the tool is.
That's it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. Support candidates who fight that suppression. Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.
Critical tools (Score:5, Insightful)
If our government believes throwing out the Constitution is what it takes to protect our nation from terrorist threats, I'm less scared of the terrorists than I am of the government.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did), there's no 4th-amendment violation, at least under current Supreme Court interpretations, because the records are considered to be owned by Verizon (not you), so their consent is sufficient. They're the ones that have a 4th-amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure of their records. So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.
Be Paranoid, be very paranoid... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because frankly, it isn't paranoia.
Assume all communications are open to government, and corporate, snooping unless you're whispering in someone's ear, and pssst... between you and me, I don't trust you.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
Spending (Score:2, Insightful)
The ultimate goal of any police state is merely to justify more spending and expand the business of government. Power and control are merely the stepping stones to riches, not a goal in itself. Many people have trouble accepting this, because they focus on the injustice and assume that injustice is the goal. Or they focus on the power and control and assume that power and control are the goals. Or they focus on the failures and assume that the "intentions" are correct but the "implementation" is wrong.
On the contrary, intentions are the smokescreen, power is the stepping stone, injustice is the "collaterage damage", and money is the goal.
Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! (Score:5, Insightful)
Metadata isn't data - it's data about your data. So it's not really subject to protection, because it's not what you're doing, it's information about what you're doing. It's not an illegal search, because we just want to know about what you're doing, not what you're actually doing. OK?
It's not like we're listening in on your calls, we're just watching to whom and when you call. I mean, it's not like we're doing a database join to find out who's on the other end of the call. That would be an invasion of your privacy. It's just their phone number, IMEI, network identifier, and the start/end geopoints. That's OK. I mean if your parents were at home they could see your phone bill and see who you called too. So we're like your parents that way. We would't give that data to another agency either. Well, unless they asked for it. But they probably won't do that.
So you see, you really have nothing to worry about. It's not a violation of your rights, it's a strengthening of your rights. Because like other government agencies, we only have your best interests at heart. Well other agencies that aren't the IRS. But you know what I mean.
But it worked pretty well (Score:4, Insightful)
They've built something which is demonstrably (unable || unwilling) to do its job.
Whatever they say its job is.
The limits of trust (Score:5, Insightful)
And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."
I might be willing to believe that if they would explain what they are doing and why and do so like we are all adults. Instead we get nonsense like the TSA claiming that someone is somehow going to blow up a plane with 4oz of liquid but it would be too dangerous to actually explain and details of this improbable threat to our safety. Frankly I just don't find their explanations (when they bother to provide them) satisfactory and so I'm forced to conclude that they are not acting in manner consistent with appropriate respect for my civil rights.
If there is a genuine threat out there I expect our government to explain what they are doing and why in terms that a reasonable adult can understand. I'm willing to extend some amount of trust to our elected leaders but that trust has very sharp limits and is contingent on continued evidence that they are behaving in a rational and respectful manner. I've seen rather little of that in recent days.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon got informed that they were required to comply, I don't think there was much room for them to disagree.
When someone comes to you with a National Security Letter (or whatever they're called), you don't even have the legal right to tell someone about it without facing (probably secret) charges.
But, I gotta say, you make it sound even more depressing -- we're not spying on you, we're asking them to provide us with information about you.
Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm curious why the vocal Tea Party doesn't trust the government on anything else, but doesn't seemed particularly bothered by the govt's growing domestic snooping. (Yes, they give it a passing mention every now and then, but never seem to push for change.)
I'm not criticizing here, I just want to know their reasoning on that. Are there any Tea Party members or defenders here who can comment on that?
Surprise Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, the truth wins out. All of us "gun lovers" have been trying to tell everyone that Dianne Feinstein is anti-freedom, anti-civil-rights, ant-privacy, and anti-American.
Re:You are actually not that special (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't agree, they were forced. They were even advised that seeking a lawyer's advice before complying would be a crime.
You got to wonder, if they had quietly refused, what would have happened to them? After all, trying them in public could compromise the secrecy of this order. Even punishing them would be tricky, you couldn't tell anyone why you were doing it. What would the family get to hear? "My son the Verizon employee is in prison for disobeying unspecified secret orders"? or simply "One day, my son disappeared at work and hasn't been seen since" ?
Is that the future in the US? It is unless they change course on these insane secrecy demands, because it's simply not possible to implement without such measures as soon as anyone stands up to it.
Re:Constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
Some things must be secret. A perfectly open democracy wouldn't get a lot done - just look at Congress and ask yourself why a lot of the stuff that *does* get done is primarily negotiated in closed rooms.
There needs to be a balance and I fully agree that balance is wildly off after 9/11. Too many judges aren't telling the Gov't to f'off when they play the 'national secrets' card. Congress is *supposed* to have oversight of the FISA court, but as noted above, grandstanding on all sides renders that pretty ineffective.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
It's long past time to divest Judge Rubberstamp of his position. The government does not have probable cause for such a search.
Congressperson Rubberstamp should go as well. Unfortunately, the populace is stupid, and so we will continue to see such erosion of privacy based upon the flimsiest of disingenuous excuses.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
They see public opinion as just another battlefield. Truths that may lead the people to oppose "necessary" action, e.g. wars, will be suppressed. Government embarrassment is a grave threat to national security that cannot be tolerated.
They've dug themselves so deep into authoritarianism that they see no safe way out, and so they just have to keep digging.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
They may choose to disagree with a NSL, and go to court, of course. But being a "free country", corporations are not obliged to do so. They simply have no clear moral or legal responsibility to protect their corporate property, such that you will feel happy about your privacy.
Really, this is nothing. What about the corporate-owned property called your credit card records? That is up for sale, it is only not easily available because the banks know this stuff is valuable, and they plan on getting their piece of the big data-informed commerce pie by holding tight. But they are allowed to sell it to the gov't for nothing, if they so choose.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
just look at Congress and ask yourself why a lot of the stuff that *does* get done is primarily negotiated in closed rooms.
That's exactly the problem.
FUD is dead - fred (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to ask that before anybody goes off on a pseudo-rage rant about this.... Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.
Not that this whole situation is trivial... It's just not really as bad as some FUD mongers are making it out to be.
Ok FUD is dead. It's been so overused that it has no meaning - meaning, FUD is used as an implicit ad hominem now. OK?
Also,
Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen
Like what?!?
We have seen over the last few years the SCOTUS back up the cops just about every time. Ask me when they didn't, and I'd be hard pressed to find an example. For cases of where they OKay'd what the cops did just requires hitting the Slashdot "older" articles button at the bottom there.
We need to get into out heads that we need - MUST- question authority EVERY time and hold their feet to the fire.
Ask them WHY are you doing what you are doing and JUSTIFY IT.
Blanket statements of "War on Drugs" or War on Terrorism" or "THink of the Children" CANNOT and MUST NOT be an excuse.
Speaking as someone who voted for Obama - I am PISSED!
And to head off the "YOu should have voted for Romney" guys - Fuck you! It would be more of the same times 911. I was HOPING that the BLACK dude would stick to the MAN but he IS the MAN.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's a very naive statement. Your papers are those things that record your thoughts, actions, legal obligations, correspondence, etc. Your bank records are your papers. Your heating bills are your papers. No one has any right to that information but you and the institution you're dealing with, and if the institution gives it up in any form but aggregated, non-specific statistics, I'd say they violated your confidence. Data about actions you take with another entity is clearly personal and only those involved can make the decision to go public with that information. Here, the phone company has been coerced: do this or jail, fines, etc. Notice when they've been trying to coerce Google, google has been saying, "this is wrong" and trying to fight said taking (and it IS a taking) in the courts?
If the phone company had done this voluntarily, I'd say, trash our phones. But it's not them. It's the feds. Unfortunately, with a population of idiots, quislings and sheep, that's not going to get fixed any time soon.
If you wish to maintain your privacy, we now have concrete confirmation that the telephone is not to be used. Something else to keep in mind is that what is not a crime today, may be a crime tomorrow, and neither the feds or the states have shown restraint when inflicting ex post facto laws upon the citizens.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Fascism has nothing to do with efficiency. Nazi Germany pretty much lost WWII in part because Hitler used divide and conquer within his own supporters, and so there was infighting at every level. That infighting crippled German production until half way through the war they realized "oh shit, the USSR is out producing us in just about everything that matters" and put someone competent like Albert Speer in charge, instead of that flamboyant, fat fuck Goering.
Efficiency is important, and we need it to have an effective government. I do agree that you have to balance efficiency with the rights of individuals, but a reasonable classification program is not going to lead to totalitarianism.
The problem is that the classification system is broken and everything and their mother is at least TS/SCI these days. So people are upset about "secrets". I am also upset, but I tend to confine my upset with material that has no justification for classification.
Re:Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Their CEO would get jailed for back dating stock options or some other "crime."
Re:FUD is dead - fred (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick test to discover who is or is not "the man."
1) Can you vote for this person to participate in the government?
If yes, The Man.
If no, undefined.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between negotiating in a closed room and trying to keep the results of that negotiation private. I've no problem with congress critters sequestering themselves in a smoke filled room to get a bill drafted. The results of the negotiation need to see the light of day before it's passed. Trying to hide the contents and just ram it through without public comment (as was tried with ACTA) is an entirely different thing.
Granted, FISA is a somewhat different situation.
Re:Surprise Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Gore, not exactly a great bastion of conservatism, makes a statement that this activity is "obscenely outrageous" and I get modded flamebait for noting that Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence is anti-civil-rights thinks that this is lawful and right. She applies the same curtailment logic on other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Apparently, slashdotters think not all rights are created equal. Is your 4th amendment rights more valuable than my 2nd amendment rights?
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Why use it in court.
Use data to find you enemies. (Democrat / Republican / Tea Party)
Use IRS and EPA and ICE and FBI to harm you.
Re:FUD is dead - fred (Score:5, Insightful)
And to head off the "YOu should have voted for Romney" guys - Fuck you! It would be more of the same times 911. I was HOPING that the BLACK dude would stick to the MAN but he IS the MAN.
You should have voted for Cynthia McKinney, or Jill Stein, or John Huntsman. As you have observed, anyone on the Blue or Red team in an election is the Man, with few exceptions.
Re:Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to ask that before anybody goes off on a pseudo-rage rant about this.... Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.
Not that this whole situation is trivial... It's just not really as bad as some FUD mongers are making it out to be.
what does it matter? if they use this to pinpoint you first and then just get other data to prosecute you with. it's not like they have to tell you that they got initial interest through this method.
what, you think that the usa government has played by any rules for about fifteen years now ? note that if nsa shares this data with any police officers for any actual crime prevention is a whole another matter.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
That is only because no one can ever go against this great administration. Liberals love big government and dictators, just admit it fool? Or will you blame the Tea Party next? Why not, vile liberals and fake conservatives will be our down fall. Keep on kissin it.
If you still think in terms of "liberals" and "conservatives" you really don't understand what's going on here.
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
It's secret because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Also because if people don't know it's happening they won't take steps against it. Also because if people knew the real extent of these types of activities, they'd be up in arms.
Re:Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
"It's long past time to divest Judge Rubberstamp of his position. The government does not have probable cause for such a search."
Of course it does. I have it on good (secret) intelligence that someone, somewhere in the world is plotting a terrorist act to occur somewhere in the US, and that they are communicating with US citizens in order to make it happen. We think they may be using a US car rental agency as part of the plot. Unfortunately we're not exactly sure which car rental company they've contacted, or what number they are phoning from, or what their destination is, or who their associates might be, but one of our agents definitely overheard them at a foreign cafe while talking on their cell phone saying [roughly translated] "Going to America for a road trip with my US cousin is going to be da bomb! Don't worry. I'm paying for the car rental. See you soon!"
The "soon" is also why there is great urgency to our request. It's probably best to just give us access to all domestic phone activity to be on the safe side, okay?
Signed,
The NSA
Re:Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is the outrage over Verizon already collecting this data? Hmm? And selling it?
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
let's quote Sen. Lindsey Graham
"This was created by the Congress, and if we've made mistakes and we've gotten outside the lane then we're going to get inside the lane. But the consequence of taking these tools away from the American people through their government would be catastrophic."
Do I even need to comment?
Part of the problem is that there is no penalty to legislators and executives for violating the Constitution. This is not a mere "mistake" as the Senator portrays it. He's breaking his oath of office and the law (the Constitution being the highest US law and a set of meta-laws). By way of comparison, let's assume that I stole someone's car, and then get caught. I am not just forced to give them their car back and call it even (or "get inside the lane" as Senator Graham puts it). The legal system punishes me for the act of stealing the car in the first place. The same sort of thing should happen when a law is ruled unconstitutional -- the Representatives and Senators who voted for it, and the President who signed it, should suffer a significant punishment. When the Communications Decency Act got overturned, it should have resulted in President Clinton, Senator Exon, and 504 other politicians spending ten years in Leavenworth breaking rocks. None of this "we'll pass it and then let the Supreme Court decide if it's constitutional" crap.
Granted, you'd have to change how Supreme Court justices are appointed, otherwise presidents and Congress would have an incentive to appoint ones who would let them get away with such things.
Re:FUD is dead - fred (Score:2, Insightful)
Huntsman's dad is the Mormon pope++. A living prophet if you believe all that. His son is unelectable in any sane nation. Pure distraction from the get go. Make Romney look less nuts.
Re:I would have had a frsoty post (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democratic Party passes the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare
Oh, and another thing. The ACA is based on model legislation authored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. Whilst there are member of both parties who are ideological outliers (e.g., Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold when he was in office on the left, and some of the Teabaggers on the right), the bases of both parties are overwhelmingly similar. Hence the colloquialisms 'Demopub' and 'Republicrat'. To quote Chomsky: 'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.'