En händelse som ser ut som en tanke är att under den tid diskussionens vågor om FRA-lagen närmade sig stormstyrka här hemma, hettade det till ordentligt också i den amerikanska Kongressen om den nya lag om telefonavlyssning av amerikanska medborgare som också har lagts fram för godkännande.
Barack Obama anslöt sig till varenda republikansk senator och varje republikan i Kongressen förutom en genom att rösta för en legalisering av olaglig avlyssning
Se filmen om detta på http://www.salon.com Här en intervju om den nya FISA-lag som utmanar Konstitutionens fjärde tillägg där Jameel Jaffer, ledare för American Civil Liberties Union, förklarar varför den nya FISA lagen går emot det fjärde tillägget i Konstitutionen bredare än vad NSAs spionprogram gör.
WHOLESALE SURVEILLANCE Former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges explains how the new FISA legislation will handcuff him and his colleagues:
This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours.
….The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict.
I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.
What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man’s story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity.
There are (at least) two issues here.
First, under the old law there were ways for reporters to be relatively sure that they could evade surveillance. Use random pay phones, anonymous email accounts, etc. After all, the government can’t listen to every conversation, can they?
Well, now they can, and reporters’ sources know it. It’s going to be a lot harder to convince them that it’s safe to talk.
Second, reporters who cover terrorism and the Middle East are pretty obvious targets for NSA surveillance since they talk to lots of bad guys. This surveillance is illegal, of course, and under the old FISA law it was hard to get around this because the FISA court had to issue a warrant if NSA wanted to tap the phone of an American citizen. But now?
They don’t need to directly tap reporters’ phones. They’re listening to every piece of traffic that goes through American switches and NSA computer software is picking out everything that seems interesting — and no matter what they say, doesn’t it seem likely that their algorithms are going to be tweaked to (accidentally! unintentionally!) pick up an awful lot of reporter chatter?
It’ll eventually be ”minimized,” but algorithms are infinitely malleable, they’re hard for laymen to understand, and they can almost certainly be changed to accomplish the same thing if a judge happens to order modifications.
What’s more, it hardly matters: the new law allows NSA to hold on to all those minimized conversations forever even if a judge eventually decides the surveillance was illegal.
Welcome to the wholesale surveillance state. Enjoy it.
Comments on July 11, 2008
Posted by: cmdicely
I wonder how long it will be before they propose implanting RFID chips in people. Probably first in paroled felons, then everyone convicted of a crime, then everyone arrested, then everyone when they are born or enter the US. It will be billed as keeping us safe from the bad guys.
The move for a nation-wide DNA database of everyone is already underway. First it was the convicted felons, then anyone who had been arrested. It is billed as keeping us safe from the bad guys.
Posted by: cmdicely
He discussed this on Fresh Air after his book came out.
This issue is a lot like water boarding – if certain assholes in Congress think it’s so great to be able to do this, how about having the FBI or the NSA tap their phones and monitor their e-mail for a month or two.We’ll announce a period that this will happen.
You may or may not be under surveillance, you won’t know, just like the ”bad guys.” See how much they like the uncertainty and the restrictions – no more talking to their mistresses or lobbyists.
Posted by: Jeff II
”First, under the old law there were ways for reporters to be relatively sure that they could evade surveillance. Use random pay phones, anonymous email accounts, etc.”
Posted by: joel hanes
Something I rarely see discussed is the potential for political mischief using surveillance as a tool. Would anyone be surprised if it were revealed Bush was actively tapping every method of communication for all members of Congress, several layers of the judiciary and anyone else representing a perceived threat to the regime?
Nah, word would get out, too big an operation to keep secret, right? Talk to Sibel Edmonds about that. Oh, wait, she’s not allowed to talk about such matters under penalty of imprisonment. Nevermind.
Posted by: steve duncan
What is so incredibly stupid about this egregious violation of the 4th Amendment (besides the obvious fact that it is unconstitutional) is that any terrorist worth their salt is not going to be using a traditional telephone line to call their agents in the United States. Unlike our president, these are not stupid people – Osama bin Laden has a degree in engineering; Zaman al-Zawahiri is an MD.
You think they don’t know their phone conversations are going to be monitored? They are going to either employ sophisticated techniques like cryptostenography, embedding comments in the source HTML code of websites, etc. or extremely primitive means like handwritten notes delivered by pack animals.
Sheesh, we have become so stupid and foolishly blinded by fear that we are willing to surrender our basic civil liberties on things that don’t buy us one nickle’s worth of security.
Posted by: Rupert Murdoch
Sheesh, we have become so stupid and foolishly blinded by fear that we are willing to surrender our basic civil liberties on things that don’t buy us one nickle’s worth of security.
Posted by: red@cted
Just finished up the series ”Jericho” on Netflix.
The only thing that differed from today was the fact that the televised Americans actually had the balls to do something about their fascist government. I don’t see that happening any time soon in real time.
Posted by: The Conservative Deflator
Actually, they aren’t that stupid, but short of using, as weenie suggested, the ever more difficult to find pay phone (probably fewer in the tribal areas of Pakistan than here), their communications have been, are being monitored, cell phone and satellite phone. All forms of telephony or digital communication have to be routed through a physical transfer point and this is where they are intercepted.
Posted by: Fat White Guy
Asshole, Shrub Co. has already abused FISA. That’s why there are several law suits working their way through the courts right now.If you’re going to post, try and keep up with the topic. Otherwise . . .On second thought, just save us all the annoyance and put that plastic bag back over your head. I don’t care what your mother said, just do it.
Posted by: Dave Brown
”All forms of telephony or digital communication have to be routed through a physical transfer point and this is where they are intercepted.” Intercepted. So what? Wasn’t there information about planes-as-bombs passed on before 9/11?
All the information intercepted in the world doesn’t make a difference if no one LISTENS.
Surveillance is being deployed and used. Just not the way most Americans think it is. ”Terrorists” don’t have as much to worry about as we think they do. The only people who have to worry are the people who threaten the status quo. Doesn’t matter where you come from.
Posted by: Locutus
Sec. 102 States that FISA and the procedures of chapters 119 (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications), 121 (Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access),
and 206 (Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices) of the federal criminal code shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications may be conducted.
In order to get a wiretap/FISA order an agent must first go through a series of documented steps to justify the FISA request…..two of those steps are that a request for and analysis of either a pen register or toll records has been submitted.
A pen register only documents who and when someone calls in real time. Toll records obviously are historic documents and can be obtained for several years back. A pen register does not ”record” any conversation, only numbers called and duration of call.
Posted by: Jeff II
Nice! The whole point of my post that you managed to ignore like a typical lefty fool. Is that the people responsible for letting FISA pass are the ones that should be held accountable for any abuses. The Democrats were political cowards on this and deserve some blame for whatever abuses occur. BHO promised to filibuster this but voted for instead, becuase winning is more important than doing the right thing.
Posted by: Fat White Guy
Am I the only one who feels like we’re living in a Philip K Dick novel?
Of course, the problem with collecting so much (mostly innocent) information is that an even smaller % of it actually gets read or heard, INCREASING the chance that something worth monitoring slips through the cracks,or gaping holes as the case may be
Posted by: Jim in Chicago
Pardon my ignorance but something I don’t understand is why foreign countries allow their citizens to be wiretapped by the US. If this is something they can not control, listening in on satellite transmissions, etc., are they not also capable of doing the same to us?
Why allow your telecommunications or internet traffic to pass through any switch that cooperates with the NSA if you are France, Russia, Libya, etc? I would think that letting the NSA monitor your communications traffic would be a real business killer for companies based in the US or with US based switching equipment trying to provide service in foreign countries.
Are we listening to Chinese and Saudis negotiating oil production and supply contracts? It would be perfectly legal, right? I need an expert to weigh in here.
Posted by: Th
um, why can’t people just use encrypted chat? you can have encrypted videoconferencing if you wanted it. Granted, the TLAs probably can brute force decrypt you, but if everybody did it, it’d take longer. this is why such laws are dumb. the bad guys can figure out how to get around it, and innocent people are the ones looked at by the law. dumbasses.
Posted by: ym
th: Why allow your telecommunications or internet traffic to pass through any switch that cooperates with the NSA if you are France, Russia, Libya, etc.? The big internet routers are mostly in the US. Satellite transmissions can be read by anyone with a receiver and the right software.
Posted by: anandine
Th, Of course it is a 2-way street.
Posted by: optical weenie
Sounds like a great business opportunity in Europe, Asia, Latin America to develop non-US switching. Chavez could use his oil wealth to build one for Latin America, plenty of Russian billionaires who wouldn’t want us listening in. Could be the rebirth of land-lines. Aren’t there lots of unused fiber-optic lines run all over the place?
Posted by: Th
Nice! The whole point of my post that you managed to ignore like a typical lefty fool. Is that the people responsible for letting FISA pass are the ones that should be held accountable for any abuses.
Posted by: Fat White Guy
Look it, troll boy, I didn’t ignore the ”whole point” of your post, I pointed out that it was wrong. FISA existed long before Shrub was crowned emperor by the Supremes, and Shrub Co. has been abusing FISA, by some accounts, since February of 2001.
It’s not something new. What the current Congress is unrelated to how FISA was being ignored for the previous seven years. Again, just fuck if you don’t have anything intelligent to contribute.
Posted by: Jeff II
”All forms of telephony or digital communication have to be routed through a physical transfer point and this is where they are intercepted.” Intercepted. So what? Wasn’t there information about planes-as-bombs passed on before 9/11? All the information intercepted in the world doesn’t make a difference if no one LISTENS.
Posted by: J. Edgar Hoover
Hey, Cross Dresser, you’ve got to read the whole post. CD wondered about surveillance (which includes ”listening”), that’s what I was commenting on, not analysis, which is what you meant to emphasize. BTW, say hello to Roy and, yes, that print number with the spaghetti straps does make you look fat.
Posted by: Jeff II
I’m pretty sure they have already been doing all of this. Hence the hurry to retroactively immunize the telecos and bury the evidence. Orwell was only off by about 25 years.
Posted by: t4toby
”The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location.” This also includes every call you make to customer service, one end is in India. It includes every email you send with a blackberry, the email is not sent directly to the person’s blackberry it’s first sent to an entity in canada (RIM).
It includes every bank statement, visa statement, morgage payment, phone records, etc. All those are sent via electronic communication by your phone company to their customer service sites in other countries.
When you visit web sites, a lot of the ads are served up from overseas servers. That traffic can be collected and correlated without a warrant.
Providing data on every click you’ve ever made.Lots of people think up these unusual scenarios with reporters, family in other countries, etc. But the reality is much more banal and much more pervasive. No warrant. No redress.
Posted by: jello5929
Is it really physically possible to monitor all these communications, at least in real time? This has to be an enormously huge amount of data to sort through. Can’t imagine bad guys use phrases like ”shell the green zone at 10 am July 23″ in their email.Of course, now I’ll be flagged. Which is the point. Even if you can intercept all these messages, what & when are you going to deal with them?
Posted by: sal
So my question is WHY did Obama do this to the Fourth Amendment? I mean for a guy who says he believes in faith based programs and says he is a man of faith,how is it that he seems to have no faith or belief whatsoever in his oath of office, the same oath that most other members or our US congress didn’t seem to mind eviscerating either on Wednesday:
The Senate Oath of Office:’I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.’Greenwald says that he still wants Obama to win the election but how does
Barack Obama walk back the damage he’s wrought and the felonies that Obama help Bush to cover-up? AND the fact that Obama helped in covering up Bush crimes technically makes Obama an accessory to Bush’s crimes really.
This is WHY Nancy Pelosi should NEVER have been able to say that impeachment is off the table, because it implies that Bush can commit any crime free of ever being held accountable by congress, thus making Pelosi and the Democratic House members an accomplice to anything illegal that Bush wants to do.
Obama is a constitutional lawyer, so nobody can say he did not know what he was doing. Politicians by their very nature, are so egotistical that once caught in a lie, they always seem to continue to lie themselves into political ruin.
As Bush’s illegal wiretapping is one of many reason as to way Bush has such low poll ratings and is seen as corrupt and didn’t want anyone to know about it.
So again, how does Obama live this down? All Obama seems to be able to do is get down right nasty to supporters whom want to point out the error of his ways. Over on Obama’s blog, Obama tells his supporters that if his position was a ”deal breaker” for them, well than so long, good-bye, go vote for somebody else.
Posted by: Me_again on July 11, 2008
Algorithms? What algorithms?
How do we know that the NSA hasn’t simply been using old-fashioned wiretaps directly on reporters?Of course, anybody who really needs to keep messages secret from the NSA can use publicly-available encryption software. So the ultimate effect is that it’s easy for ‘terrorists’ to avoid surveillance, but innocent people are going to have their privacy constantly violated.
Posted by: Whispers
Few, if any, of Shrub’s crimes over the last seven years have been hidden. The problem is having a Congress and a judiciary willing to pursue prosecution of them.Well the whole purpose of ”telecom immunity” was to HIDE the lawsuits done by illegal wiretapping,
so Bush’s acts have indeed been hidden, and would have been exposed ”legally” had these lawsuits proceeded. This whole FISA Bill fiasco will cause the Democractic Party to have a very weaked candidate come November so it is really quite the travesty.
Posted by: Me_again
As far as avoiding detection of your calls goes. My teenage son could figure that one out in about 15 seconds. Buy yourself a throw away cell phone and have your source do the same thing. Well, you stupid fucking ignorant jackass, not only is the NSA able to do voiceprint comparisons to instantly figure out who you are on your brilliant workaround, just purchasing disposable cellphones puts you under a cloud of suspicion of being a criminal or terrorist.
Because that’s what happens when you try ”work arounds” in a surveillance state. Hence the value of liberty, and all that, foreign as that might be to mouthbreathers like yourself. People that have nothing to hide should have nothing to fear.
First of all, that sentiment has no place in a free society and directly contradicts both the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights.Secondly, because of the corrupting nature of power there is always a reason to fear. Iraq had nothing to hide and we invaded and caused the deaths over a million people.
A few hundred of the prisoners in Guantanamo and the CIA’s black prisons had nothing to hide and were imprisoned for years anyway until their innocence was realized and they were let go, weak and broken.And because we are now a nation of secret laws and secret prisons and an unchecked executive we don’t even know how many more people might be languishing without cause in a cell somewhere.
Under this horrible maladministration, not only has infringement on civil liberties and capricious suspension of privileges skyrocketed in the form of secret lists with no oversight, they’ve had no compunction ignoring the law and ethics entirely whenever it suits them. It is precisely that tyranny the Founders anticipated,
being keen observers of human nature, and why they put measures in place to prevent its exercise.Don’t you realize what an anti-American boob you are for defending the transgession of those measures??? Obviously not. I believe Jeff told you to fuck off for being such a worthless preening turd. Please do.
—-
Krisen har sopat bort $1 trillion från finansmarknaden: guld, olja och euro pekar spikrakt upp – resten pekar ner och amerikanska finansbolag har redan hunnit förlora en miljard dollar i år.
sammandrag: Ingrid Ternert
