EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations 268
An anonymous reader writes "EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 — 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau's intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed. Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the report finds: Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board; reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant; and indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11."
Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.
We've seen it before.
With this being known fact, the politicians are to blame for enacting the Patriot Act without even reading it just because they needed something to trumpet in the media that would appear patriotic after 9/11.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The list would accomplish nothing, but having civil recourse as a victim would make fun reading.
Especially since every report to congress (even if two years late) is a defacto admission. No law suit should be necessary, just send the check.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad there isn't a "Sad but true" moderation.
Most people ignore things that don't directly involve them. Who cares if [insert agency] commits [insert action] against [someone else]. Until someone finds out that a questionable legal wire tap implicated them in some sort of crime, which could lead to serious jail time through new means, they could care less. As you said, they'll flip over to American Idol and otherwise numb their brains to oblivion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is interesting to note how many people are apathetic to anothers plight until they have knowledge of a person that they are close to in that same plight.
While it is true we can not fix the world, we can at least listen and give voice to our opposition.
Unfortunately, even those that speak of these incidents are also under attack, labeled as "liberal" or "democrat" which somehow translates to "Commies".
Brain washed masses indeed.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for a moment let's give the public a mite more credit. I peg them at "we're upset but what can we really do?"
60's style protests don't work anymore. The tempo is wrong - Gov makes a 3/4 concession, keeps 1/4 of the evil, then slides a nasty twist on their concession as a dessert. Thing is, there's no "timeline" on this one - there's no "are we done yet" to know when we can do the 50's period of recovery. It's a thundering case of cabin fever where we all go crazy.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobby. They have computers, they have word processors. 1 letter and a mail merge reaches a whole lot of politicians. I've done it and it works. They will ignore an email but a respectful single page letter gets a lot of attention. So apathy is a pretty good description.
Best regards
John Citizen
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, what I would see happening is a serious civil "unrest". It would be when the people take back their power from the government, and act in ways the people want.
Consider what has happened in the past. Not only in the short past of the United States of America, but all around the world.
Those with the ability organize and do things for change. That isn't misguided attempts [usatoday.com] drawn from the rantings of a horrible example of a pseudo-leader [google.com].
It is all of us, forming to stand up against what is wrong. "Legal" methods may not be enough. A letter writing campaign, and a few hundred of your friends standing on the sidewalk in front of the Congressional buildings with signs and chanting the slogan of the moment obviously has no effect. The 60's style protests didn't work in the 60's. They are, and always will be, an ineffective form of protest.
I have to say the following disclaimer. Assume it's in huge bolt text, flashing at you. I AM NOT RECOMMENDING, SUGGESTING, OR OTHERWISE INCITING ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Before anyone reads any farther, go read that statement again. If you still don't get it, put down your gun and your beer, sober up, and read it again until it makes sense.
So what would it take to bring change?
60's sit-ins, peaceful protests, peaceful assemblies, petitions, letter writing campaigns, and free-love-ins, just won't work. Well, I'm still for the free-love-ins, but we'll save those for another conversation. :)
The "Rally to Restore Sanity" brought about 250,000 people to Washington DC, and countless others who couldn't attend who supported from home. I was one of the later, as I couldn't afford to drive, fly, or walk to DC.
With 250,000 people standing there wanting to make change, they made speeches, and went home. The folks in power may have noted that something happened, but really their appearance didn't do anything except raise the total tourism dollars for DC by a little for 2010.
If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings) [wikipedia.org].
I would personally be proud to walk to the front of the group, stand in front of the representatives who are doing wrong and say "Sir, I represent these people, citizens of the United States of America. We do not believe that you are representing the needs, wants, and beliefs of the constituents who you have sworn to represent. We as the representatives of your constituents we respectively ask you to resign immediately and exit this building."
There are plenty of people among us, who would be excellent leaders. We wouldn't accept corruption. We have better morals than to take bribes in any form.
That sir, is how you make change in a totally non-violent way. Not one shot is fired. Not one person is injured (except for maybe the occasional trip and fall hazard). The only violence would come from the law enforcement professionals who some may take an unconstitutional stand against the people.
It is said that we have the "Four boxes of liberty", the soap, ballot, jury, and ammo boxes. There is no need to go to the fourth, unless the powers that be decide to use it against the citizens standing up for their rights. In reality, a couple hundred thousand people standing there saying "we want change", and really meaning it, do not have any reason to use violence. Well, except for possibly gently moving anyone who may try to block their way. You can be assured that someone in a uniform will
Re: (Score:3)
I AM NOT RECOMMENDING, SUGGESTING, OR OTHERWISE INCITING ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Then you go on to say
If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings [congressional office buildings]).
Right now I'm imagining it, except they get greeted with riot police telling them to go home because they are demonstrating without a permit.
The rally to restore sanity (and Glenn Beck's rally for that matter) only took place because the powers that be knew that they would do next to nothing.
Would they turn and run as soon as the first police officer showed up? Would they run home after the first tear gas grenade is thrown into the crowd, or the first rubber bullet fired? Unfortunately, I would guess that they would.
Well, they damned better unless you ACTUALLY ARE inciting an illegal activity.
The civil rights movement didn't care about breaking the laws they disagreed with. That's the difference. Non
Re:Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this is that you assume the people you're marching with have the same idea of what they want as you do.
I can make my army of people for a government that cares about the greater good of the people instead of corporate interest and it sounds nice and all but what does it really mean? Are we saying we want a single payer medical system so the poor don't get left behind? or are we complaining that they even considered such an option? Are we upset about going to war or about leaving too early? Do we need the government to give us more or less gun control and what makes you sure everyone marching all agree on any of these points?
I can make my army of the people, and you can make yours and the government doesn't have to do a thing because we both consider each other a group of dangerous lunatics who must be stopped before they send our country spiraling into a warfare/welfare state. And this isn't because we're brainwashed. It's because we intrinsically don't all agree. That's why the election is so close to 50/50. I think the people who want to run around with guns and hate government healthcare are wrong and they thing the same about me. You can't make an army for the unified voice of the people because there is no "unified voice of the people".
Re:Of course they did (Score:4, Informative)
So what you're saying is that they care at least a little bit?
I'll let David Mitchell [youtube.com] elaborate.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't accomplish anything. The proles will just change the channel to their "American Idol" or other similar drivel when they get bored. The American public is too apathetic about the political institution in this country to actual pay attention to what it does or to even have a hope of real change.
And if you need another example. Just change "American Idol" to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
What we need is a long, continuously updated list of every time our concerns have been assuaged by a promise that "the new powers will only be used in these specific and necessary circumstances". Then we add to the list documentary evidence of those promises being broken. Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.
I think I saw that list. It's in the dictionary.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unity [princeton.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Like Net Neutrality?
Or are you the only one allowed to use the "slippery-slope" argument?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying the "slippery-slope" gets a double standard around here.
Government regulation of the internets? There's no way that could go wrong!
Law enforcement activities? OMG! Give them and inch and they take a mile!!! Patriot Act!!! ATTICA!!!
If we need a list of thing the government STARTED with then expanded their grasps to include, and never relinquished control of, you might just find quite a few of the things you agree with and kept quiet about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.
We do. It doesn't make it onto fox news.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree whole-heartedly. Governments almost never return power to the people once given.
Here's a solution to the problem with the FBI. Prosecute each violation vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law. Any member of law enforcement should exemplify the standard and therefore be fully accountable to it. Perjury is typically a felony in most jurisdictions and any FBI agent (or any other agent given special powers) should spend time in federal prison for such a crime. This will provide ample time to consider how they've trampled underfoot the blood of those who died to preserve the freedom Americans enjoy.
I'M SICK OF THIS ABUSE OF POWER!
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but who are you going to get to prosecute them. And even if you did find a prosecutor how long do you think it would take before someone visited them off the record to make sure that their case failed.
Democracy is a sham, we live in republics and the bureaucracy controls the them.
Self prosecution? Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a solution to the problem with the FBI. Prosecute each violation vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law.
You are asking the government to prosecute itself. Without a person at the top with a highly developed sense of morality it isn't likely to happen within the same branch of government. Even with such a person at the top, political reality may make it impossible. That's why we have separation of powers. It will ONLY happen if a different branch of government is the one who decides to press the issue. Expecting the executive branch to spank itself is simply wishful thinking most of the time. If congress or the judiciary can be prodded into action, then something might happen. Otherwise, forget it.
For what it's worth I don't expect much out of Congress either. Very easy to score "soft on crime" political points on someone who criticizes the FBI even if the FBI deserves it.
Re:Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:
-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on.
-The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge
-The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law.
I would say reprimand the manager and remove him from leadership. Rotate lawyers so they don't get complacent. Finally reprimand the individual and require he have oversight by a coworker for a period. Then conduct retraining of whole office by legal.
The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness. That's the difference between a novice and an experienced bowler. When it happens it's probably because the individual wasn't trained well enough or didn't have good enough access to legal. I think it's a case of Hanlon's Razor.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that in this case, the violations were that clear-cut. And the best argument is that all 3 are potentially guilty of a serious crime.
If I go to a lawyer and say "Is it legal to rob a bank?" and the lawyer says "Yes, go right ahead", I'm still in trouble if I go to rob a bank. The lawyer may also be considered a co-conspirator, and at the very least should have his bar membership in question. And anyone I work with as part of the plan is also a co-conspirator. Why would the crime of a FISA violation be any different?
Re: (Score:3)
All of the above. I think you'll find that if you were ordered to commit a crime by your management,
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
the system is broken.
you guys are arguing about which privileged class gets to run the country.
I question the very NOTION of a privileged class running the country. enough of the rich bastards having their way and taking care of their own!
term limits should be ONE. period - no renewals. that removes the 'profit incentive' or rather, the come-back-to-get-more-power incentive. you get one term to make a difference and then you're back to your old job; but with oversight to ensure you didn't make some sweetheart deals for post-office kickbacks. there should be a STRICT no profit restriction on public officials. only get the ones that want to do it 'for the right reasons' and not for the money or power.
arguing about which of the 2 parties - or even if you can get a 3rd - does not change a damned thing. this is a false-choice that is given to you.
fix the system, remove this party 'us and them' concept and let each person speak on their own terms, on issues. isn't what what we REALLY want? parties are bullshit and serve no useful purpose but to deceive. why keep that outdated notion?
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
term limits should be ONE. period - no renewals. that removes the 'profit incentive' or rather, the come-back-to-get-more-power incentive. you get one term to make a difference and then you're back to your old job; but with oversight to ensure you didn't make some sweetheart deals for post-office kickbacks.
Except it won't work. If the official in question knows he won't be in power again, he has no good reason to fix anything; it's not like *he*'ll have to deal with the consequences. On the contrary, he'll have a strong incentive to fill his pockets as much and as quickly as he can, since it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Something similar happened in Eastern Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ottoman sultans named merchants of Greek origin [wikipedia.org] as delegate rulers of some of the vassal countries. Those Phanariots got the nomination via massive bribes, and, once the rulership was obtained, their main objective was to recoup the expenses and get rich quick, before somebody else replaced them, That led to massive mismanagement, excessive taxes and general misrule.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, just find me an alternative that's better.
It's called actually getting to know the candidate and voting candidate by candidate, rather than by party.
Parties are nothing more than corporations and when you vote for corporations instead of people, you're putting that which is evil (corporate America) in charge of the only entity that can protect us from that evil, our Government.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's your forefathers that are to blame.
While they got heaps of stuff right, FPP voting breeds two-party systems. It's a classic moral dilemma: People who vote for "the better of two evils" get more power from their vote that people who vote for a third party.
No, you guys need a preferential or proportional system - then you don't have to throw your vote away for the sake of making a point.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Informative)
Lets see:
* Australia. Lower house is representative preferential, upper house is technically preferential too, but with a proportional bent (multi-seat voting). While there are two main parties in Australia, neither has a majority in either house. Until recently, there was a viable third party - a role slowly being taken up by the Greens at the moment. Lower house has a significant number of Independents. There are a number of instances of seats being won by candidates who polled quite badly on their primary vote, but were outright preferred over the major parties.
* Holland. Bicameral proportional system, with 10 parties in each of their two houses of parliament. Neither house is controlled by a majority. In fact no *two* parties could even band together to form a majority in either house.
* New Zealand. Unicameral proportional system with direct representation: Single house with 50% representative FPP seats, and 50% "list" seats which are granted to parties in such a way that parliament becomes proportional. Again, currently two main parties, but neither has a majority of seats. Parliament is made up of 8 parties in total.
* Switzerland. Bicameral proportional: 6 parties in each house, with the greatest proportion being 31%.
Compare with:
* USA: Bicameral FPP with separate executive. Each house is made up of exactly 2 parties. One party, "the winner", holds an absolute majority, while the other party, "the loser" holds virtually no power. The only saving grace is the split terms of the senate, where you might get lucky and have each house independently controlled ("a tie"). In such cases, the two parties are said to "compromise", by filibustering.
Re: (Score:2)
And most of those politicians got re-elected by us, that us including you.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that it was formed during the great depression to take on Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly and John Dillinger. The focus from the get go was on results over process. It's a lot better now than it was under J. Edgar Hoover, but that's not really saying much. The first crop of agents were trained very quickly to shoot first and ask questions later if ever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Incorrect.
"In 1886, the Supreme Court, in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, found that the states had no power to regulate interstate commerce. The resulting Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 created a Federal responsibility for interstate law enforcement. The Justice Department made little effort to relieve its staff shortage until the turn of the century, when Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte reached out to other agencies, including the Secret Service, for investigators.
Re: (Score:2)
In every decade since I was born (in the early 50's), the FBI has engaged in egregious misconduct, although sometimes we didn't find out about it until years later. I am amazed that they have any credibility left, and puzzled that people continue to act surprised when these things come to light.
Is everybody in U.S. of A born in the '50?Are there extensive history classes on FBI abuses, perhaps ending with an exam, on the topic?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but since 1950 was 60 years ago, the majority of people have were born since then, and all of them have spent over half their life living in post 1950.
I was just trying to offer some clues for your "puzzlement that people continue to act as surprised". My point: I suppose you aren't surprised that new generations keep coming and, not having the whole knowledge/experience of a born-'50-er, they might be genuinely surprised. Even if only acting, I'm still happier with this faked reaction than I am with the "and how's this new?" one.
Speaking for myself (a whole 15 years younger), I'm puzzled rather by "Would the politicians never learn?"
Re: (Score:3)
How long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau's intelligence investigation practices" (emphasis mine). I'd say this won't even get to headline news in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
...and indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible crimes in the 9 years since 9/11.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I do wish those violations were criminal. During the Bush administration many powers were felt to be within the power of the president under a supposed duty to defend the nation. This polluted reasoning filtered down through the Justice department and people like FBI agents doing all kinds of things were allowed. Since we declined to prosecute the Bush Chaney cabal we somewhat lost any right to go after the lower members of the pecking order. Frankly the entire military chain of command up to and inc
Re: (Score:3)
And your right, the government won't do anything about it.
What bothers me about this is that the government is run by people, and it's these people that won't do anything.
It's as if they get a rise out of doing it OR they are content because it's someone else and not them.
Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
.... it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years?
I'm fairly certain it will be picked up. Most of the violations were by Special Agent Lindsay Lohan, who posted them from rehab on her Facebook while drunk.
Re: (Score:3)
But if the EFF is so Tech and New Media savvy, it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information...
Who said that EFF is (or need to be) media savvy?
Just what happen to the position "news of problems need to travel the fastest?" What if the first "slow news day" will come only in 1 year from now?
Should everything be subordinated for the "news-tainment consumers" market segment? Should an organisation [eff.org] focused on "protecting your digital rights" be dumbed down to the level of the society instead of attempting to raise the society to its level?
Re: (Score:2)
So they release this at the exact same time one of the largest middle eastern countries is undergoing a revolution?...But if the EFF is so Tech and New Media savvy, it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years?
I'd question how media savvy YOU are if you think events in another country being the top news story ISN'T a "slow news day" in the US. The average citizen doesn't care much about Egypt. They waited until the media couldn't talk about an American politician having sex, a celebrity dying, a celebrity having sex, or someone blowing something up.
Plus, I've heard plenty of hate here for wikileaks being -too- media savvy, collaborating with media, and releasing it slowly so that the media can't give it just 15
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that a group should "hold on to the information for a better time" is really not in the public's interest
Tell that to the people from Wikileaks. I've been looking forward to the leaks on US banks, but I haven't seen them yet.
If you have the news in your hand, you report/divulge it ASAP. If the timing sucks, well, then it sucks.
Thinking of reporting in "black or white" terms, as you are proposing, fails to take into account the subtleties of human communication. The world has more than 10 options.
(Yeah, I know. I must be new here.)
Not a lot statistically. (Score:4, Interesting)
The summary makes it seem like a big number but if the FBI has ~36K people working for it that's just over 1 violation per employee in those 9 years. I'd expect to make at least one mistake in 9 years.
Re: (Score:2)
if the FBI has ~36K people working for it
Does that include the people mopping the floors at HQ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The summary makes it seem like a big number but if the FBI has ~36K people working for it that's just over 1 violation per employee in those 9 years. I'd expect to make at least one mistake in 9 years.
I'm sure they made more than one mistake per individual. We are not talking about simple mistakes here. We are talking about violating people's civil rights and then covering it up. That's a lot different than someone making a typo or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a lot statistically. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1 violation of ones civil rights or liberties is too many.
2009-2010 are probably just as bad (Score:2)
WTF (Score:4, Informative)
The FBI has abused its power since its inception. COILTELPRO ring a bell? The FBI has been used to investigate the political enemies of powerful politicians since before most of us were even born. Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?
LK
Re: (Score:2)
1. the FBI must be dismantled as an active organisation
2. the FBI is good and dandy... get over it, there's no right to privacy for anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
3. The FBI can be useful in the actual solving of crimes, but to curb abuses we should prosecute Agents, Special Agents, SACs and directors when they're involved in illegal activity instead of wringing our hands like we do now.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?
...to curb abuses we should prosecute Agents, Special Agents, SACs and directors when they're involved in illegal activity instead of wringing our hands like we do now.
Does EFF sounds to you as an organization with a focus on "wringing their hands" [eff.org]?
Seems to me the first thing one needs to do is to see if (you "when") illegal activity occurred, wasn't this what EFF has set itself to do in this instance?
Re: (Score:3)
Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?
"Should" is one thing, "would" is another altogether. Most voters don't realize that law enforcement isn't always the good guys. They need to be informed each and every time you catch law enforcement acting up, or law enforcement will be allowed to be completely corrupted.
Average (Score:2)
Colombia (Score:2)
COINTELPRO never ended (Score:5, Informative)
Although the Church Committee ostensibly ended COINTELPRO in 1971, revelations such as these that surface every few years make it clear that such tactics have *never* been abandoned by the FBI.
I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & Orde (Score:5, Interesting)
You know the shows I'm talking about: the ones that show spooks and law enforcers breaking their own ethical rules (and everyone else's) in the obsessive pursuit of goals and people who have been quietly pre-convicted outside of any court or due process. They just KNOW the person is guilty... they just have to concoct some a-moral scheme to PROVE it!
These shows plant the seed that such behavior is acceptable. It can't help but have repercussions in the real world, humans being as impressionable as they are. It's "the end justifies the means" yet again. Judicial impartiality? What's that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Along with shows like COPS, DEA, the various SWAT shows, etc. get the population used to the idea of a police state by only showing the "good" things they do so we believe they are only here to help us.
It's all propaganda.
Who's watching the watchers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not at all that those watching the watchers are asleep. In fact, you are replying to an article that proves the exact opposite. No, what my life in the US has taught me, is the utter, utter, utter idiocy of the argument that as long as the watchers are watched, the widespread watching can be an acceptable thing in the name of security.
I mean seriously, reading slashdot for the last 10 years. The watchers are thoroughly watched. We may only know 10% of what they've done, but we can easily guess the
Them again? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh my God - who was president during 2001 - 2008? Oh, that guy, the guy that oversaw illegal wiretaps and domestic spying and lying to the nation about reasons for going to war and politicized the justice department and the US Attorneys and the civil rights commission and even the interior department and self-justified torture on captives and outed one of our own agents for political revenge and who refused to consider the need to address climate change and that lowered taxes on the wealthy even more and wh
Re: (Score:2)
Shame the new guy decided to "look to the future, not the past" and didn't want to even have a commission to look at any wrongdoings. If you are politically connected you can get away with almost anything, both of the main parties are just as bad. Murder (Kennedy and the dead hooker), shooting a guy in the face and not reporting it for a day (Cheney), and all the other things that are so obviously wrong that late night talk shows use them as punchlines.
I'd like to see actual punishment for crimes, and not
Re:Them again? (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong argument (Score:5, Insightful)
When you make a claim like that, the response is always going to be "was any harm done?" and the answer to that is usually "no, no harm was actually done" and then the response to that becomes "stop being a sissy, no harm no foul. unless you're up to something illegal, you've got nothing to worry about."
What the EFF should be claiming is that "government employees abuse the limits of their power". You have to focus the argument on the action, not the reaction. The way the Constitution is written, it doesn't guarantee the civil liberties of Americans. Instead, it limits the scope of authority of the federal government.
Re:Wrong argument (Score:4, Informative)
Er.. wrong.
The U.S. Constitution defines quite specifically 4 things:
1) Liberties granted to US citizens
2) Formation of a governmental structure
3) Powers granted to said structure
4) Limitations of powers on said structure
If you are unsure of what the liberties are, I can quote a couple for you. Limiting the powers of the government IS the essential building block of granting civil liberties.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Freedom (Score:3)
There I said it, again.
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
And... (Score:3)
You're surprised exactly...why? The government is CORRUPT. It has been since before I was born, and it will be long after I die. If it's not in its current form, it will be in some other way invading our lives in ways we disagree with.
My question now is: So now that the EFF found this out, what exactly do they plan to do about it? Is this one of those "Well we found out about it, but fixing it is someone else's gig!" organizations?
I only ask because those help nobody, and I wish that everyone involved with them would choke on their misplaced self-satisfaction and do us the courtesy of dying.
What do you call it..... (Score:4, Funny)
When an individual breaks the law 3 times?......Habitual Offender or 3 time loser
When a small groups breaks the law 100 times?..... Gang or organized crime
When a large group breaks the law 40,000 times?.....A government agency
So what (Score:3)
In related news (Score:5, Informative)
Exhuming McCarthy, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
no its always been bad, its the same how we view wars http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html [ted.com]
basically we learn more about it faster then it gets better
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI isn't supposed to be spies, they're supposed to be detectives. The CIA is for spies.
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you call the people in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division? What do you think they do? The CIA is not chartered to operate counterintelligence operation in the US, that's the FBI's job.
Re: (Score:3)
Special agents of the FBI. Detectives! They are not supposed to be covertly gathering information, they are supposed to stop people covertly gathering information.
That's not to say they aren't doing any domestic spying, just that they're not SUPPOSED to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:percentages are important (Score:5, Insightful)
Abuses like this aren't exactly like speeding (which aside from being quite possible to do without trying or even realizing it, is relatively harmless) - you have to go out of your way to set up wiretaps and perform other actions that violate America's core values. I can accept a small handful of instances where the time required to go through the proper channels (warrants, etc) would have taken too long, but that should be the exception rather than the rule - and some five thousand times per year is hardly an exception. That basically means one of three things - the process is broken, these people are doing things they have no need, right, or reason to do, or federal policy has agreed upon our constitution being worthless. If the latter is the case, fine - bring on the revolution, since we've voided the existence of our government and all of the laws it has created.
Re:percentages are important (Score:5, Interesting)
It is clear that the third is the case, and that at this point revolution is the only recourse the American people have to bring their government to heel. Bush started these abuses, Obama is continuing them, and it will get worse. The TSA is groping us; the big banks are plundering our country as fast as they can; Guantanamo is still operating; Congress is proposing a kill switch for the Internet rather than fess up to the misdeeds exposed by Wikileaks; and we still don't have any jobs worth a damn here.
How much more evidence do you need, America?
Re: (Score:2)
It matters if the number of violations is a significant percentage of investigations... All systems have errors. that has to be expected, it has to be anticipated: whatever you put in place will have errors: thefts, abuses, breakdowns. It's like the air you breath: it ain't pure. If you want to breathe, there's gonna be some bad stuff in there, always. Has to be. Perfect cleanliness, being quite next to god, doesn't exist.
It doesn't take much (even when speaking percentage) for something to stink.
It takes only 0.00047 ppm of H2S for 50% of humans to detect a "rotten eggs"-like smell, it takes 100–150 ppm for the optical nerve be paralyzed, it takes 800 ppm for 50% of the humans be dead in 5 mins (should I go ahead an explore hydrogen cyanide?).
In the matter of democracy and freedoms, even a small percentage of "mistakes" (even if when not outright abuses) can be deadly or seriously crippling for the society.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So because you don't understand math they are wrong? Seems like that's more your problems than theirs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Re:Actually, it is a lot less (Score:5, Informative)
That "new math" you don't understand is the simple arithmetic and multiplication the rest of us learned before they let us *into* high school.
Summary for you, the idiot:
1. The data the EFF isn't everything and doesn't claim to be everything, however 33% of the potential violations in that data are NSL violations.
2. Back in 2008, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine told the House Judiciary subcommittee that a 10% review of FBI field office NSLs found 640 potential NSL violations from 2003 to 2006.
3. Oh look primary school math: (640 * 10) / 4 * 8 * 3 = 38,400. Or in words, if 10% were 640 then there were 6400 potential NSL violations over 4 years, so 1600 per year. So over the 8 years the EFF data is for 12800. Those type are 33% in the EFF data so multiply by 3 for 38400.
And yes that's extrapolating an extrapolation. But that make that very clear in their report.
Re: (Score:2)
I get where you are coming from but regardless of how you feel about the wars, we stopped fighting a war in Iraq years ago when the people of Iraq decided which side they were on. You only discredit your own argument with the whole "two pointless wars" line; We are only fighting one war. If you are going to go to the effort of writing something like this keep it accurate so the rest of your statements can be taken more at face value.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo fixed (Score:3)
Re:but were they right? (Score:4, Insightful)
If all of those 7000 criminals were somehow murders, rapists, child molesters etc etc... then by all means, I don't care if they don't get a warrant or whatever, get those peeps off the streets ASAP but if there were people who were wrongfully accused because of lack of evidence and stuff...
The problem is, there is no discernible difference to a jury between these two situations:
1. We searched his house and car illegally without a warrant, but found all this evidence. Convict the bastard.
2. We couldn't find any evidence, and didn't have enough probably cause for a warrant, but we're sure the guy's guilty because we don't like his face, so we're just going to say we searched his house and car and found all this evidence, even though we didn't.
Warrantless evidence has a much higher possibility to be fabricated, which is one of the reasons it's not allowed.