House Democrats' shameful compromise
The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill "does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans." She is wrong. It does.Democrats Capitulate on FISA (via Reason)The broader spying powers given to the executive branch by the compromise bill require intelligence agencies to "target" foreigners. But if those foreign "targets" happen to call or e-mail Americans, those communications are fair game. And since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is only permitted to review the broad targeting procedures government eavesdroppers use to determine that a target is abroad, and not the substantive basis for authorizing surveillance of any target, anyone is a potential target.
The bill, in other words, allows the government to conduct "vacuum cleaner" surveillance -- sweeping up international traffic willy-nilly -- then filter it for anything that looks interesting. Indeed, many believe that licensing such surveillance is precisely the point of this legislation. If so, "warrantless surveillance of Americans" could well become routine, whether or not they are the formal "targets" of eavesdropping.
Previously on Boing Boing:
• Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"
the latest
latest episodes
As an Ohioan, I am so proud that one our senators, Sherrod Brown, was one of the fifteen to stand up and vote against cloture.
"Terrorism" is a canard. The United States needs to at least return to its pre-9/11 laws and structure, and put an end to its fearmongering.
The real threat is the police state being constructed with "anti-terror" legislation.
Not sure how much this matters if Obama is compromised, but Sherrod Brown is supposedly in the Democratic Veepstakes.Here's my take on this and hopefully a good overview of the whole situation:
A Brief History of Government Surveillance
Enjoy.
Cheers,
--fletch
Coincidentally, Pelosi and Hoyer (as well as several other Democrats) received nearly $30K each from the telecoms who cooperated in the illegal spying.
If I had known it was so cheap to subvert the government, I would have skipped college and bribed congress with my tuition to give me undreamed of powers!
Very funny/odd video about FISA on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LTsszp6zp4&
Whenever you see the word "compromise", think "security compromise". This is usually the correct interpretation; it's a weasel word for "we are completely screwed".
Even when it's not being used in that sense, it just means "a solution that nobody likes". Compromises are never good. Why do people keep acting like they are?
Meet the new bosses. Same as the old bosses.
[guitar solo]
I am glad the bill passed.
In the first, I am not convinced that surveillance violates a person's rights. An innocent person whose activities become known by another party suffers no change of state because of it. When the surveillance is used in aid of infringing a right that should be held, then the proper response is to uphold the right. DFletcher pointed out on his blog that the same techniques used today against terrorists might tomorrow be used against drug dealers. The solution is to legalize drug sales, not ban the surveillance.
Secondly, I can't see how general surveillance equates with specific surveillance. If they tap phones A-Z, and keep the information from Z while discarding A-Y, Z might have a claim against them, but I don't see the merit of A-Y's rights being violated.
Thirdly, I'm still not clear on whether this data mining concerns actual wiretaps, or merely phone-call metadata (who's calling whom, when, for how long, and where, for cellular phones). If it's only the latter, there's even less claim of rights violation.
In short, my fundamental disagreement is with Zuzu's:
"'Terrorism' is a canard. The United States needs to at least return to its pre-9/11 laws and structure, and put an end to its fearmongering.
The real threat is the police state being constructed with 'anti-terror' legislation."
Terrorism was not a canard for the dead and wounded on 9/11; it was quite real. Why should I expect that a return to pre-9/11 policies, which resulted in, or at least allowed to happen, 9/11, would not produce a similar outcome?
And I do agree with Asuffield's assertion that compromise is always wrong. Rather than bipartisanship, we should conduct direct democracy and determine if the people favor it, or at least let those who wish to cede their information to the government to do so.
Phonebook,
This kind of surveillance violates a US citizen's 4th amendment rights.
"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."
But judging by your post history, you're not a constitution kinda guy/gal.
Nikos,
Flaming loves to whip people up with his hate-filled invective. You'd get a better response if you talked to your shoe.
Understood.
-- John de LancieBut judging by your post history, you're not a constitution kinda guy/gal.
To the contrary, I'm following the letter of the Amendment. There is no seizure at issue here, so that's out. And I am simply asserting that the search involved is reasonable, since it is non-invasive. And I'm certainly not in favor of violating the last clause about improper warrants, since I'm in favor of going ahead without any warrant at all.
Antinous: Flaming loves to whip people up with his hate-filled invective. You'd get a better response if you talked to your shoe.
"unless you define 'compromise' as a 'shameful or disreputable concession,' which fits the deal brokered by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to a tee."
"The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)"
"Either she's a liar or a buffoon"
"She's always been both."
I'm sorry, it's I who am hate-filled?
The possibility that a few determined crazy people will carry out criminal acts of violence is the price of freedom for the whole of society.
Then leave your doors unlocked, less you pay the price of your freedom to enter your house without a key. Some security measures are worth the cost. In my estimation, surveillance is one of them.
Furthermore, all of these "security measures" do little to prevent such events, but do much to constrain and meddle in our way of life.
We're discussing wiretaps/data mining, which do nothing to constrain and meddle in our way of life. When they lead to arrests for victimless crimes, I'll complain. As to prevention of terrorism, we don't know how much or little they do.
And, as I've said before, far more people die in traffic accidents, of heart disease, cancer, and AIDS, not to mention the military occupation of Iraq, each year than died in the destruction of the World Trade Center. But does the Federal Government throw heaping piles of money at research into preventing those deaths? No.
Do you see no qualitative difference in those mortal causes that would warrant government interference in one, but not the others? I do: one is caused by men, the others by nature. The right tool for the right job. Against traffic accidents, stronger cars and wider roads; against disease, medicine; but against murderers, government.
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid.
- John de Lancie
Then cease your timidity in the face of the government, and don't seek safety from it, while allowing me to satiate my gross desires.
You see, fear and favor cut both ways. We both fear, and we both favor one side of the conflict. You have your standards, and I do not question them. Mine are based on the philosophies involved. The one side says, go forth, master the earth, amass wealth, take pride in your achievements, and seek ever for greatness. The other side says, abase yourself before god, learn rules written and unwritten and follow them even to your own detriment. Subjugate the self, bow the head, and cover the face and body.
Of those, I know who I favor and who I fear.
Moreover, the reason people make irrational reactions to the WTC destruction generally amounts to misleading vividness. Watching a building fall down is easy; imagining all of the discrete people dying of heart disease is hard.
That's the real rub revealing itself -- this clash of civilizations garbage philosophy, which is actually just a comfortable disguise for renewed jingoism and xenophobia -- a herd mentality. Let me know when they start book-burning again.Yes, Flaming, you're vile. You're a puny little red-faced man shaking his fist impotently at a universe full of imagined insults. I don't know how you got to be such a piece of work, but I sure don't envy having to live inside your head.
My shoe just wants to add:
First they came for the Flaming Technical Manuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Flaming Technical Manual ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
As a Wisconsinite I am torn. On the one hand we have Russ Feingold, with whom I often agree and who vehemently opposed the bill. On the other had we have Ron Kind who rolled over right away.
Don't get me started on that lump of crap Sensenbrenner.
I don't mind the binary minded. They're easy to work around and if you get hungry, not much trouble.
It's those damned "shades of grey" people that take up your time.
well here's your "justification"
CHARLES GIBSON
PIERRE THOMAS (WASHINGTON, DC USA)
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) Good evening. Intelligence officials say it is their number one concern. Caucasians from a European country who have graduated from an al Qaeda training camp. Such potential terrorists would be dressed in western clothing, drawing little notice as they board a plane bound for the US, coming to launch an attack. There's no indication such an attack is imminent, but this scenario is of great concern to experts in and out of the government. ABC's Pierre Thomas reports from Washington tonight. Pierre?
oooh look everybody! a conscience!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26airports.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=technology&adxnnlx=1214557207-6cn24cZmwwHDrHS8oJsbQQ
Let us say rather that I'm taking a "shades of grey" view of history. I see some cases where nominal injustices are used to defend life, liberty, and property, and I see them resulting in no decadence. Abraham Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corbus during the Civil War, for example. It's where the powerful want to walk us all on the road paved with good intentions that I see the worst atrocities. Naziism, Communism, Islamism, all were born out of, and supported by, ideologies that purported to seek perfection and advancement for all, rather than defend the rights of the individual.
But surely we don't plan to stop heart disease by arresting and prosecuting arterial plaque? The AIDS virus isn't going to be charged in wrongful death suits?
Humans have free will, which natural causes of death do not. To see them as different is hardly myopic.
It's not xenophobia--I'm just as much against citizens of my own country descending into the collectivist mentality as I am those in foreign lands. Unless you mean that the philosophy I don't share is the "xeno-." In which case I confess it: I'm fearful of those who hold that I have no rights and am a subject of god or the state.
IANAL - like most people. But something has struck me here that I haven't seen mentioned before: US Constitution, Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
It's easy enough for me to read the FISA bill, just like anyone can. But someone please explain to me exactly HOW this isn't in violation of the Constitution? Doesn't "no... ex post facto Law" mean you CAN'T grant retroactive immunity? Or does it only mean you can't retroactively criminalize something?
Explanation? Anyone?
I think the 800lb gorilla that FlamingPhoneBook is ignoring is that his viewpoint is precisely valid... as long as you have 100% faith in every person that ever ends up on the other end of the line tap.
Because politicions would NEVER spy on the opposing party to stay in power. Because homophobes would NEVER ferret out gays to beat to death. Because any individual would NEVER steal identity information. Because only people who are 100% trustworthy would EVER be allowed to control the data.
Wasn't there a set up a little while back where they convinced some honest non-corrupt military guy to observe a vehicle from a surveilance van, and he ended up watching the 'neighbors' (actors) next door having sex through a window and completely missed them driving the suspect vehicle away? Even completely honest people given the power will through idleness and interest, will horribly violate the privacy of the innocent public.
While Flaming might just be a troll, I think a lot of people just blithely assume that spying on the public won't be handled like, well, you know, a government program.
That's the point of a lot of the constitution. It's not because privacy is some glowing god given right, it's because NO ONE can be trusted with certain kinds of power.
This bill has convinced that I've been even more correct than I realized when I've said, over the past six years, "The revolution is over. The billionaires won." We have a Democratic majority in the House, and we appear to have a Democrat heading for the White House, and Dick Cheney and his corporocrats are *still* calling the shots and deciding how to run this country.
I predict that within five years or so, it will become a crime to make certain criticisms of the government, and doing so can be considered a threat to national security; and that people who pose such threats can be held indefinitely without charge, without due process, without anything.
Because this, I believe, is only the beginning.
This is the same reason why centralized authority created by the USSR set the conditions for centralized authority by the FSB in the Russian Federation. This is the same reason why colonialism in African nations created a succession of military dictators precluding the cultivation of significant wealth and freedom in those countries. This was the lesson from Orwell's 1984, there is a point of no return for political totalitarianism. Once we cross that threshold, we're doomed.
It's also worth remembering that the KGB and GRU agents in the Soviet Union spent more time spying on each other for political maneuvering within their own government, than they did on spying abroad.
I'm with FlamingPhonebook on this one. The constitution was written in a time where an international phone call or email was... beyond conception.
For me, the overwhelming fact is that all of the major countries out there with the capability to comb through the data passing in and out of them already do. Chances are very high that they tap into lines they shouldn't be as well. Data surveillance is the best chance we have of catching bad things happening.
Of course I disagree with the government on exactly what BAD is, but I think that that shouldn't preclude this sort of data mining. Also, comparing this wiretapping to the FBI's wiretapping of MLKjr and Malcom X is unfair since I believe they were tapped during all calls, not just international.
For more information on what other country's privacy policies are check:
privacyinternational.org.
Zuzu: The infrastructure is already in place, worldwide. The patriot act ammendments to FISA were passed long after Echelon was leaked to the public. ECHELON on wikipedia.
Simple example of how Americans can get wiretapped under the new laws. Take me as an example. I'm a legal alien, my wife is a US Citizen, as is our child. FISA allows them to tap my phone without a warrant, which means they tap my wife's phone. Hence, a US citizen is wiretapped without a warrant. QED.
Why should the telcos worry about disclosing their wiretapping practices? If they did nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. So how many senators does a get out of jail card cost and how much per senator? Can we also bid?
@Antinous, way up there
Hey, I get great reception on my shoe!
PS:Canada looks better every month.