Senate approves warrantless wiretapping and telco immunity, throws out the Fourth Amendment
Stephen sez,
NY Times has reported that the Senate just approved a bill extending the warrantless wiretapping program AND giving the telcos immunity from prosecution for violating the law and the rights of their customers for compliance in earlier illegal warrantless wiretapping.That sound you hear? It's the Bill of Rights being torn in half. Talk about losing the war on terror. Who needs external forces threatening your way of life when your elected lawmakers are doing such a good job of it? Link (Thanks, Stephen.)And Barack Obama voted for it!
Listen to your phone calls? Record your conversations?
Yes we can, yes we can...
The future just got a lot scarier!
Cory, It's getting to the point where we aren't really electing them anymore. (See past two presidential elections.)
Far be it from me to say something good about a Republican, but McCain did better than Obama on this one by sitting it out...
Aww Shit. What happened to the various senators who claimed they would filibuster the bill?
Now what?
Who is Barack Obama?
We have just peeked behind the curtain. Whatever else happens, it is not because we didn't know who the players are.
Old Mexican saying:
Sobre aviso no hay engaño
"There is no deceit if you have been forewarned"
Phikus, McCain hasn't voted on a ton of stuff. He is hardly even doing his job. As a side note, Ron Paul didn't vote on this either.
Now's the time to stop caring, officially, if you haven't already.
Look at you go, Liberty!
I think it's fair to say, based on McCain's previous statements, that he's in full support of this path, too. I have confidence that either Obama or McCain would be equally prepared to douche out on liberty.
@#4, an old Guatemalan saying:
Presidential elections are about quien es mas mentiroso que el otro...
"who's the bigger liar."
American voters need to have a minimum standard of acceptable behavior in their candidates. I suggest that failing to honor the oath of office should be reason enough to put a candidate on the Do No Elect list.
I'm going to be sick.
I voted for Hillary.
I wonder how she voted?
Well, you can't say that lack of experience has kept Barack Obama from being a model legislator. After all, legislation is all about compromise: Compromising your beliefs, compromising the law...
Please oh please when the time comes (and it WILL) that McCain says, "I didn't vote for that," someone has in their new spine from Amazon and says, "But you didn't vote at all."
Silence. Is. Assent.
@#10
Hillary voted no on this bill, but her record on privacy issues up to this point isn't exactly something to be proud of.
You know, I think I'm going to take my voter registration card, tear it up into little pieces and mail it to Senator Obama with a letter saying how disappointed I am in his vote. How I felt so good about casting a vote for him in the primary. But here is one less vote he will be getting. Here is one less vote anyone will be getting... ever. I am sick of this. My elementary level education was at a church run school (Missouri Synod Lutheran) in Texas. I was taught much about our history and traditions. As part of my schooling I had to memorize the Bill of Rights. Thirty years later it means nothing to me. Its all lies. Its all over. The really bad people have won. They don't dress funny or have strange accents. They look like us. They talk like us. They are us. What now happens to the citizens of this country is exactly what we deserve. My life goals now are to be a good little 'sheeople' and live as 'under the radar' as possible. If I'm lucky I'll be able to avoid having my life come to a premature end in a gulag in the Nevada desert.
Not voting is the new voting. Most of them have done it to avoid something or other.
By the way, something I'm not entirely clear on if anyone knows:
This bill leaves the door wide open for spying on anyone, even American citizens, if they're sending messages from outside the US. Does that mean that if my internet traffic passes through a server somewhere outside of the country, even if I'm personally in the United States, it's fair game? Not that it matters, since the telecom immunity portion of this bill guarantees that my domestic communication will be spied on with impunity, anyway.
"Does that mean that if my internet traffic passes through a server somewhere outside of the country, even if I'm personally in the United States, it's fair game?"
Yes. Assume that everything is being scanned and encrypt. This is a very serious issue for business communications, since the amounts of money involved in major transactions may well tempt the watchers to intervene.
On the broader topic, the 4th amendment has been getting toasted for a long time, as the ACLU has observed. This is the end of a long, painful process.
Oh, yes. ACLU on privacy issues.
BTW, let me stress that, even in Obama turns out to be a conservative Democrat (discouragingly likely), he is probably still a better choice than McCain, who is beholden to the wingnuts. It may be the choice between Goldwater and LBJ, but I think it's a real choice nonetheless, so hold your nose and vote. I'm still wishing for a progressive, though. Save us, Al!
*weeps*
Barack Obama, you broke my goddamn heart.
He's turned into another goddamn authoritarian. Who'm I gonna vote for now?
I you have nothing to hide, what are you worrying about?
I too am angry at Obama about this. If there was ever a time to take a principled stand, this was it. And if there was ever a pol who could turn this issue into a teachable moment, it's Barack.
I always felt Barack was a center-hugger at heart, which is why I voted for Edwards, who was at least making the leftiest-sounding noises.
However -- and this may not be the best time to bring this up for some of you -- not voting only helps the status quo. Think of 1968, or 2000.
If you can't bring yourself to support Barack, then please check out Act Blue and find some good Congressional candidates to donate a few dollars to, whether they're running in your district or not.
We need a far better Congress than we have, regardless of who wins the Presidency.
This is a sad, dark day in American History.
Let's look at the numbers:
47 Republicans voted for it, along with 21 Democrats.
27 Democrats voted against it.
The bill won on Republican support. Every Republican who voted, voted for it. Either they agreed with it, or they didn't agree but still voted with the party. Disappointing, but that's nothing new.
With that in mind, for the bill to lose every Democrat voting would have had to vote against it. And you won't ever see that. What interests me is that 21/27 split on the Democrats.
First, it shows that Democrats aren't afraid to disagree with their party. Even if you don't like it today, that kind of courage is a good thing in general, because it often means they are listening to their constituents or their personal judgment instead. Of course, this is where the majority of responses will tell me how, naturally, everyone Democrat who voted the wrong way is corrupt.
Second, and I know I'm probably going to get called an idiot for saying this, but maybe they know something the public doesn't. This whole thing has been shrouded in secrecy from the start, and members of congress are briefed on a need-to-know basis. Those extra details may have influenced their vote.
The final roll count is here.
All republican senators voted for the bill, with 2 abstentions (McCain and Sessions).
Of the 49 democrat senators, 28 (55%) voted against it. Kennedy abstained (hospital, I think) The rest voted in favor of it.
There are 2 independents. 1 voted in favor (Joe Liebermann) and one voted against (Sanders).
@#18
I don't think the Goldwater/LBJ analogy holds up, since in that election there was an existential threat (hot war with the Soviet Union) on the table. Absent that threat, nobody should ever hold their nose (and close their eyes, plug their ears, take a couple shots, etc.) and vote for a character like Lyndon Johnson, who has to be up there pretty high on the Worst Presidents Ever list. The only reason Johnson doesn't get the level of disdain he deserves is because he was followed up by Nixon.
Not that I don't think that Obama is preferable to McCain, but the negatives of McCain aren't enough that I'd vote for Obama. The major difference in my mind is in foreign policy, where McCain is completely psychotic. But all we have to go on with Obama foreign-policy-wise is a promise to (someday, some way) pull out of Iraq, but after the last couple of weeks of action on his part, taking Obama at his word is a dubious proposition.
oops. off by one up there.
in short:
republican: 47 yea, 2 abstain
democrat: 21 yea, 27 nay, 1 abstain
independent: 1 yea, 1 nay
you can always look here for results
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/show
Does the EFF still have any way of moving forward with its attempts to uncover the truth about what happened here? How is it even possible to sue the government for improperly spying on you if that information is classified? Also, where does this put the United States in relation to other countries in terms of surveillance policy? Considering how common CCTV cameras are in the UK, I would assume GCHQ would have already been granted carte blanche to do this sort of thing over there.
Randwolf - there were good reasons to use good encryption long before any of this.
In fact, the US Government may have been the second to recognize that need. I think the Germans were first with the Enigma.
anyone talking about voting for a third party in the presidential election deserves a label that would get me disemvoweled and possibly banned.
Suffice it to say that the only way a third party vote makes sense is if the two main candidates are equally evil in every way. If one is better than the other, you either hold your nose adn vote for the lesser of two evils, or you vote third party and effectively abstain from having any impact on the outcome, at which point, you are supporting whoever wins. If the worst of the two candidates win, then you voted for that candidate.
Anyone who argues that voting third party in a presidential election is NOT supporting whoever wins and somehow "sends a message" is smoking crack.
All you people who "sent a message" by voting Nader in 2000? You can see just how much your "message" affected George Bush's policies. Thanks a lot.
Also, Tweedledee/Tweedledum arguments will be mocked as well. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and we wouldn't be in this quagmire now. And the white house wouldn't be saying that the "jury is still out" on global warming or that we need to "teach the controversy" about evolution.
No, the tweedledee/tweedledum arguments were crap in 2000, and they're crap today.
Do not despair, #14, betrayal builds barricades. See you there.
@#28
The EFF is now trying to get a court to rule that Congress infringed on the powers of the judiciary by granting blanket immunity. That tactic actually has a fair enough chance of succeeding, so don't lose hope yet.
The twin towers of freedom and privacy have just collapsed with cameras rolling...
Oh God, why did they do this to us? Why do they hate our freedoms? Why do they hate America? What did we do to deserve this attack?
Wait!!! Oh shit!! There goes the Tower 7 of human rights!! Oh, the lack of humanity...
Welp, we finally found the specific location of these top terrorists in the world who truly hate our freedom... our own quasi–government located right smack in the middle of Washington, D.C.
How the hell did these fuckers get into D.C.? Didn't anyone check these terrorists' passports?!
Maybe it's time for a preemptive strike against these terrorists by voting every one of these assholes OUT of office.
------------------------------
Cow-Tip : If you aren't using PGP for all your business communications that have proprietary info, you are just asking for other business entities (a.k.a. parts of "our" privatized government) to pluck them right up and exploit your business secrets for financial gain. PGP, look into it.
If you believe that our privatized government wouldn't ever steal your business secrets... you deserve to get them stolen.
------------------------------
Øbama sucks... but is less suck than McCain.
LESS MASSIVE SUCK '08!!! LESS MASSIVE SUCK '08!!!
Obama, Change We Can Belie- [scratch!! rip!!] ok, nevermind... just give us change we can't believe in. I suppose that's better than no false promises at all.
FYI, if you are asking yourself how Obama could have voted for the bill, please read his statement on the matter
He feels this bill, while granting immunity for past and present actions, will bring the program itself under review.
@#30
This attitude is why the two main parties can nominate steadily worse candidates every year but people will still vote for them. Nothing that the Democrats have done since taking the House and Senate gives me any confidence in the "lesser of two evils" principle. If you think that the Democrats are being forced to vote for terrible bills like this by the political climate you're kidding yourself. They want these powers. This is a key principle to understand, and it's playing out in front of us right now that a Democrat is almost certain to take the White House: If the Democrats are given an opportunity to wield tyrannical powers, they will take it and abuse it just as quick as any Republican.
Let me expand upon that Cow-Tip: If cleartext communications are leaving your business, you are possibly subjecting them to illegal surveillance by your own country's government and/or businesses, and you are most definitely subjecting them to surveillance by foreign government and business (often one and the same) who do not have to answer to any of the laws that protect you.
However, and any security professional will tell you the same, the biggest threat to your corporate and personal livelihood remains the trusted insider.
Absolutely, #30. Can't people count? Do simple sums? Nader elected Bush. Perot elected Clinton. Forget the third party bullshit. Protest votes are self-indulgent, holier-than-thou posturing.
I also think that nominating Obama in the first place was holier-than-thou posturing. This is still a racist country. He can;t win. Rove & Co. are going to shred him like a wet kleenex. I assure you, I won't be a bit happy when I say, I told you so!
@#35
He feels this bill, while granting immunity for past and present actions, will bring the program itself under review.
This is called a "lie". The FISA court already had sole legal oversight over the granting of warrants. This bill actually weakens the oversight that already existed, by only allowing the court to review the procedures that the President uses to determine who to monitor, rather than being able to review the validity of specific cases.
Nancy and Harry living up to the promises?
Harry Reid voted against it, if that's who you're talking about.
I don't know who Nancy is. There are 16 female senators right now. None named Nancy.
All 5 female republican senators voted in favor
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
11 democrat senators total
5 votes aye
6 voted nay
Or about 55% voted against the bill, which is pretty much how the whole democratic party split on this bill.
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
To #20, and the "if you have nothing to hide" argument- Do you really think that the government only employs people who don't abuse their power? Really?
Well, I guess that when it gets down to it, there are bad people who are breaking laws in the privacy of their homes. If the government could put cameras and microphones in ALL of our houses, and do random checks, then we would all be safer, wouldn't we? After all if we have nothing to hide...and it's for our own safety...
We are one step closer.
Here's my comment from the Gadgets thread, if that's OK.
-------------------------------------
Change you can believe in! My butt. How many times does this guy have to reverse course, flip-flop, turnabout, and on and on. Anyone left who thinks he'll keep any promise to withdraw troops or prosecute the current administration? Anyone left who thinks he'll turn back the clock on the sweeping changes Bush implemented increasing Executive Branch power and privilege? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
So, the conventional wisdom is he had to do this or face a firestorm from the Republicans. Republicans calling a Democrat soft on national security that's a new one. Do whatever you want Obama, Republicans would never think of outing you for promising to do X and then doing Y, over and over? If being wary of looking soft on security was the case and nothing could be earned by voting nay, then close your door and turn off the lights. At least pretend to preserve some of your credibility. Don't worry, he can cry about Nader costing Democrats the White House.
------------------------------------
"Anyone talking about voting for a third party in the presidential election deserves a label that would get me disemvoweled and possibly banned."
Which party do you work for?
Does anyone honestly believe this tripe? Gore and Kerry ran two of the worst presidential campaigns in recent history. In the pool hall there's a saying, you gotta win both matches. Gore lost both; the one in the voting booth and the fight in the parking lot afterwards. Yes, we got what we deserved. At this point a third, fourth, or fifth party is our only hope. Bouncing back and forth between these two flavors of BS is exactly what they count on. The only way to make your vote count is to vote against both these back stabbing ______ .
@#40
Nancy is Speaker Pelosi, who midwifed this abomination in the House.
That should say 11 female democratic senators...
sigh.
@35:
He feels this bill, while granting immunity for past and present actions, will bring the program itself under review.
This is rubbish. He isn't approving of it so that he can gloriously destroy it later. This is not a summer blockbuster or a fairy tale. He voted for it because he supports it. Open your eyes, Dude! Wake up! Write this on the goddamn whiteboard 500 times:
He voted for it because he supports it.
The reason there wasn't a filibuster was because >60 senators supported the bill. It takes 60 votes to limit debate in the Senate.
I live in Texas and I'll be writing in Chris Dodd on my ballot this November
@ 35 WeightedCompanionCube, thanks for the link! :)
(Just sitting here twiddling my thumbs and reading comments... *whistles*)
Oh man, this is so depressing. This is the kind of stuff that happens in banana republics.
At this point, the only remaining question is how does one go about seeking political asylum and where is the best place to do so. I've had it with the US. I want out.
Which party do you work for?
I work as an electrical engineer designing chips for consumer products. I don't do any campaigning or volunteer or paid work for any political party.
Does anyone honestly believe this tripe?
I believe it. I wouldn't call it tripe.
Gore and Kerry ran two of the worst presidential campaigns in recent history.
Since I answered all your direct questions, here are a couple for you:
Do you personally think Gore was a better presidential candidate than Bush Jr in 2000?
Did you vote for Gore or for a third party candidate in 2000?
short yes/no, gore/nader answers will suffice. Spinning the answer isn't neccesarry.
#42: Which party do you work for?
I think he's running cattle round-up for the Democrats, in case anyone's thinking about bailing on Obama after this. So I guess he won't be upset that I'm voting for Barr, since the conventional wisdom is that Barr takes votes away from McCain. (Not that McCain ever had a chance of getting my vote in the first place.) As for it having no practical effect, I disagree. It's a strategic vote. The Republican party is going to be a pile of ashes after this election cycle. If enough people vote for Barr that the story is framed as the Republicans losing because they no longer appeal to the small-government wing, that improves the odds that the libertarian(ish) insurgency within the Republican party gains greater influence in the chaotic restructuring that takes place post-November. This is one of those points in history when one of the two major parties is going to undergo a massive ideological shake-up, and there's an opportunity for libertarians to aim it in a more positive direction.
Obama is Karl Rove's greatest accomplishment: the political Trojan horse!
I'm very disappointed with Obama. I'm still voting for him, but he's slowly becoming the lessor of two evils.
By the way, by "running cattle round-up for the Democrats", I don't mean in any official capacity.
Hey Cory,
Between this and "Little Brother" I've been looking into encryption (PGP, SSL) but, I can't wrap my damn head around implementing the stuff.
I use windows, and I started with the goal of "hey, why not send Cory an encrypted email", and track down the public key. I notice it says GPG key, so I wiki search that, then go to see about getting and using it. Upon looking at the FAQ and "mini-howto" my eyes began to bleed.
BoingBoing, EFF, or anyone else have or are going to put out, something like a "Complete Retard's Step-by Step Guide to Internet Privacy"?
As a foreigner, all I can say is that this is a very unfortunate event. Obama should have known better and chose wiser.
If you want to send a message to Obama telling him this is unacceptable, I would encourage all supporters to boycott fund raising for a defined period of time.
I don't write this with the intention or desire to see his campaign strangled for funds, but a sharp, short boycott of contributions is the strongest signal the American people can send and this juncture in your history. Those citizens of conscience I think must work to undertake this.
This is not a strategic liability in the long run; Obama maintains a sizable fund raising lead and a heart start in popular support. However, there must be repercussions for the candidate from the American populace for such an egregious vote. Further, I believe it could be argued that any representative that did not vote an emphatic “Nay” on this resolution would be violating their oaths and worthy of condemnation (abstention is not good enough on these important votes, shame on Ron Paul for not attending).
This is a precedent that cannot remain if you wish to see the true demise of the Bush ascendancy. If there is not a hard tack towards a principled defense of Rule of Law democracy, little hope remains for the United States. As a Canadian (aka ripe target), the developments in the United States are an intimately foreign affair; the elephant in the bed, the sneezer who transmits the cold (to borrow to oft quoted sayings). So for my sake, and yours, I think the only way to help right the American ship of state is a concerted fundraising boycott against Obama for a limited, predefined period of time.
@ Buddy 66:
Obama can win. He may not, but he can. Granted, this decision didn't do much for him.
You're right about this being a racist country, but I think that one thing you are eliminating from your equation is that this year will see record numbers of minority and women voters, and that bodes well for the Dems. After all, a lot blacks and latinos are racist, too.
I disagree with everyone who says that we should "hold our noses," though. Maybe if you had an oversize safety pin I could borrow, but no. Obama loses my vote. He's every bit as influenced by big business as McCain, and he's proven it indefatigably.
I may just vote for McLame, if only to hasten the demise of this once great nation. We would have to retroactively unelect every single Senator who supported this measure. The road to recovery is too treacherous for fat, lazy bastards like us. It's all downhill from here.
A different kind of war. Hopefully one where the entire stinking world blows up.
The supreme court will never let this stand.
Candidate? No.
Voted for Gore, yes.
Gore was a terrible candidate.
And I'm upset with him not Nader.
And I apologize for bing so upset, but I was hoping against hope to live long enough to see just one of these __________ do the right thing for this country.
*correction to my above post - forgot Ron Paul is a congressman and not a senator. sorry.
420
@#54
I would also recommend this:
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
http://thestrangebedfellows.com/
Glenn Greenwald, Trevor Lyman, and a few others started up a liberal/libertarian blog cabal to go after the scalps of Steny Hoyer, the creative force behind the bill, and a few vulnerable "Blue Dog" Democrats who voted for it. If just one Congressman loses their seat (or has trouble keeping their seat) as a result of their vote on this bill, it will send a very powerful message to all the others.
@#58
Don't be sorry; he was absent for the House vote. He seems to be missing a lot of votes recently.
A little closer to the original subject, please. At this rate we'll be arguing about Franklin Pierce soon.
Senators Obama and Feinstein have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect; I can't in good conscience vote for them now, not for any government position.
As Kevin Klein said in "A Fish called Wanda" - DISAPPOINTED.
Why so soon? Shouldn't the first date (albeit a one year first date) have resulted in chocolates and roses? Not a cynical admission that he actually has a wife who will not let him follow what I thought were his first impulses (back at the bar, he looked at my eyes and melted my resistance) I'm used to being strung along for at least a little while.
Second, and I know I'm probably going to get called an idiot for saying this, but maybe they know something the public doesn't.
I think they know there's a good chance their candidate's going to be elected this fall and they want unlimited spying powers.
or
I think they know they'll get called terrorist-enablers if they stand up for the Constitution, and it's easier to just roll over forh the Bush administration...even though they'll then get called terrorist-enablers anyway.
or
I think they know they themselves have been spyed on for the past seven years and they're terrified of having their dirt leaked.
Or all the above.
@ #54 posted by Anonymous , July 9, 2008 7:32 PM
http://www.instructables.com/id/Encrypt-your-Gmail-Email/
Anyone see this? http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/07/09/fisa_obama_and.html
Obama seems pretty reasonable in his response:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF
There's another corny bit about "working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago", but he also says:
"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions." He claims this is because "The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court." He also says, "I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate."
FWIW, I think Obama actually wrote most of that email.
....and there it goes. Goodbye, 4th Amendment, you were fun. Hang your heads, your leaders have failed you today, America.
-T
I wonder if this is a signpost on the way to the end of the "American Experiment" much like the Soviet version of Communism didn't seem to work out, the American version of Democracy is something else that doesn't seem to be working out. Maybe it ended a while ago, maybe this is the point where it ends... but either way the America which the founders envisioned isn't whats going on today.
Method,
But the claim that this bill is better than the previous one is just a lie. Is it a lie Obama is telling or one he has been told? Probably the former.
There is already an exclusivity provision in the current FISA law. But thanks to today's vote, that provision amounts to jack squat, because this bill all but guarantees that the issue won't be able to proceed in the courts, so no one will be held accountable for violating that exclusivity provision. What's more, given the broad powers the new bill gives to the executive branch (essentially legalizing the previously illegal Bush program), the exclusivity provision means even less.
What good is an exclusivity provision in a law that effectively says "spy on whoever you want as long as you swear it's really important to national security, and as long as you keep an eye on yourself and decide you aren't doing anything wrong"?
@#69
See #39. He's throwing out "we made sure that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court" as though that is some great improvement the Democrats managed to add to the bill. The reality is that no law superseded the authority of the FISA court to begin with. That's clearly written in the original 1978 version of FISA, so saying it again in this bill is a redundant non-accomplishment. The bill does see fit to reduce the actual oversight capabilities of the FISA court, though, as I explain above.
The politician you respect is a liar. I had to face it with Ron Paul, and now the day has come for Obama supporters.
@#71
Have (a little) hope. Remember the Church Committee that laid out the massive domestic spying of an earlier era and led to the creation of FISA in the first place? We're probably going to have another thing like that down the line, provided we don't fall full-bore into dictatorship mode over the next ten years.
#72
Be careful not to confuse the telecom immunity portion, which legalizes unlimited domestic spying, with the new restrictions on the FISA courts, which legalize unlimited overseas spying. FISA exclusivity doesn't apply to the NSA domestic spying lawsuits. Those lawsuits go before (or should I say went before?) regular courts, not foreign intelligence courts.
all you people crying "WOLF!" make me laugh. thank you, weightedcompanioncube, for being a sane voice in this din of insanity.
What the hell should I have expected from a Congress that thinks the internet is "a series of tubes and not a dump-truck"?
I'm going to find a large bottle of alcohol and cry into it.
Waterhouse,
I don't think I was confusing the two. It's just that the original exclusivity provision said essentially 'following the terms of this law is the only way you get to spy,' and the new immunity provisions say, 'except for that whole breaking the law thing that you're now off the hook for,' which retroactively neuters the exclusivity provision.
Also, as I'm sure you aware, the 'unlimited overseas spying' includes communications where the other party is in the U.S.; so those calls are both foreign and domestic, so to speak.
#75, Definitely. Everyone is being totally hysterical and making it impossible to think, which is what danah boyd is complaining about. Also, there's a lot of political kabuki here with how people voted, which is how the American democratic system works, for better or worse.
Obama appears to not just have broken the hearts of his young progressive supporters, but stamped on the pieces. Folks, I'm sorry.
"I don't think the Goldwater/LBJ analogy holds up, since in that election there was an existential threat (hot war with the Soviet Union) on the table."
If McCain invades Iran, we will probably have World War III. Vote, damnit, vote.
"However, and any security professional will tell you the same, the biggest threat to your corporate and personal livelihood remains the trusted insider."
Actually, it's more likely to be the lack of backups, still the first and best security measure.
"Between this and 'Little Brother' I've been looking into encryption (PGP, SSL) but, I can't wrap my damn head around implementing the stuff."
I judge the install procedures of the free GPG beyond most users; it's a job for experts. Either: (1) hire someone to install it for you or (2) just buy PGP.
In general, use Firefox and Thunderbird. Run Internet Explorer and Safari as little as possible. Don't run Outlook Express.
PGP: [http://www.pgp.com]
GPG for Macs: [http://macgpg.sourceforge.net]
ccrypt (simple general-purpose file encryption): [http://ccrypt.sourceforge.net/]
Don't know much about Windows, but try here: [http://enigmail.mozdev.org/home/index.php]
PGP does support Notes and Office/Outlook.
This seems appropriate for tonight's playlist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b3mi-bKtDGA
@70(tony), they failed us long ago. at least in the past they werent so damn in-yer-face about it. remember ikes warning "beware the military-industrial complex." we now truly begin to reap those fruits.
Sirdook,
I understand what you mean, but the laws related to spying on communications entirely within the United States are different from laws related to spying on communications where the message comes from overseas or involves American citizens abroad. If the government wants to spy on domestic-to-domestic communications they have to get a warrant from a normal court. If they want to spy on communications that come from outside the country or involve Americans abroad, they have to get a warrant from the FISA court. So FISA's exclusivity doesn't really apply to the NSA wiretapping that is the subject of the lawsuits, since that program would have fallen under the oversight of normal courts, not the FISA court.
And I am aware that the 'overseas' spying includes communications where one of the parties is in the U.S. The legal distinction throws it into the separate FISA court system, though, which is what I'm getting at.
It would appear that the Executive and Legislative branches of the government have given up on the fourth amendment; if the Judicial branch doesn't save us, we are doomed. But hey, at least Mars has water! Pack the wagons!
For my fellow leftist/progressive folks here, I would strongly encourage you to stop looking for a candidate that is 100% pure on every issue you care about, and start thinking strategically. Unless a candidate sticks to making the right decision 100% of the time, then they are going to be some small bit evil. Since NO political candidate can make the right decision 100% of the time (they are human, and also have to do what is necessary to win sometimes), that means that it is always a choice about which is the lesser evil.
Electoral politics is not about finding the saintly individual that represents everything you believe in and expressing you ideals by voting for them (or abstaining from voting if nobody meets your ideals). Electoral politics is about making tough choices about how to get the country into a better position. No perfect, just better. And electoral politics is only one of many necessary steps that people have to take when we make change for the better. The most important is that we have to organize and demand change no matter who is in office. Change doesn't happen by having the right person elected and then everybody sits back while they fix everything. The point of electoral politics is that you vote for the person you would rather be campaigning against for change.
So for those here, who's disappointment I share about Obama's bad decision on this bill, who claim that this means mean that should not vote for him, please think again.
I remember these kind of remarks in 2000 about how Gore was bad, and the Democrats are bad (both true), and how that means it doesn't matter if Gore or Bush wins, they are the same, so don't vote or vote for nader, to send a message or vote your values. And 2000 is a great example of the problem with that reasoning. The effect of nonvotes / votes for Nader was certainly not that the democrats or republicans got a strong message and had to move to the left. Nonvotes and votes for third parties in the U.S. do not send a message. (They do allow the nonvoter or third party voter to send a message to themselves about how pure and principled they are that the would not vote for a bad man or a bad party, but thats all)
8 years later, most people seem to have more clarity about the fact that yes indeed George Bush was a terrible, terrible thing for this country, and probably worse that Al Gore would have been, and that matters. It matters in the American and Iraqi lives that have been lost, in the lives lost to Katrina, in the lives that may be lost or diminished due to the lack of a sensible energy policy, the list goes on. My point here is that we need to look at candidates with greater resolution. Our 8 bit lenses see a few bad things from each and tell us they are the same, don't vote for either, but if you really care about the concrete effect of lives that an administration will have over the next 4 to 8 years, then its worth choosing less death and destruction, and give us a better fighting chance to force change upon them.
So please, for the sake of the lives at stake in this election, look as closely and strategically as you can at what we have to gain and lose based on our voting choice.
I learned a while back not to have illusions about politicians being pure and good representatives of my ideals, and though I am disappointed by Obama's decision on this bill, it doesn't change my game plan: help Obama win, then fight him as hard as we can to make him make better choices. And more importantly, organize year round to change the country by bringing together all of us who need our democracy back to have power together to make that change.
It is time!
coup d’état
coup d’état
coup d’état!!!
Pls BBrs. Cl n.
f crs, Hssn wll vt "ys cn" fr ths.
ntl th cpylft/cvl lbrtrns cm dwn frm thr Slcn Vlly ch-chmbr bbbl nd strt spkng n bsc hmn lngg tht ddrsss rl frs tht rl mrcn wh knw nthng bt nd cld cr lss bt BBrs, Twttrs, FndngFrnds, Scl Mtrts, nln Cmmntts, Wb -2 nd Shmglng, rctnry crprt frcs wll, srprs, srprs, xplt frs.
t lst thy'r chrng n nd nd Chn.....
why does everyone keep blaming bush for the current mess? The organ grinder's monkey?
Wow, both of my senators voted for the bill. Guess who aren't getting my vote next time!
Still not sure about who I'll vote for in the presidential elections thought.
What actions can I personally take to fight this? What are the ACLU or the EFF doing to fight it?
Our two party system has utterly failed us. And the old plan of action, voting "lesser of two evils", is what has finally brought us to this place and time.
The Democratic Party is a joke and the Republicans too.
The only way to send a message and to start to remove both of these corrupt parties is to open the doors to third parties.
It doesn't matter which third party you choose to pick but for me I'm going with Barr and the Libertarian party.
Lewis,
That really didn't make the cut for civil discourse. I'll assume that your passion for the subject got away from you, if you want to present the same ideas in a less bellicose fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
When our elected officials betray the constitution, they do not deserve their office. If you vote for them after that, YOU betray the constitution (it's just a piece of paper, but it's all we got).
Justifying your vote on the grounds of gamesmanship, or voting for the lesser of n evils, evades a more basic responsibility.
The only way to send a message and to start to remove both of these corrupt parties is to open the doors to third parties.
That message the Nader voters sent in 2000, boy, that was a doozy, wasn't it? Made Bush stand up and listen, eh? Set him straight in a hurry. Changed the way government does business, didn't it? Rewrote the election procedures. cleaned up government. reinstated civil liberties.
Which is to say 8 years after all those people voted for Nader, I'm still waiting to see what change that actually caused.
other than helping Bush into the White House, I mean.
What real, measurable, changes did voting for Nader in 2000 produce? I'm not aware of any. It's still a majority-vote-wins election process. And that process still reinforces the two-party system.
And we got 8 years of Bush instead of Gore because of it. That's the one measurable thing it did.
But the true-blue Naderites will deny the one real effect they had, and find something else to blame for Bush getting into office. And while they deny their Bush Assistance program, they then keep harping about all the great and wonderful things that their third party vote will do this time around.
Voting for third party in a majority-vote-wins presidential election is abstaining from the vote because it will not affect which of the two primary candidates will win.
And people have already said it about McCain abstaining from this FISA bill: it's the same as supporting the bill.
You abstain from voting, or if you vote for a third party in a majority-vote-wins presidential election, then you're helping and endorsing whoever wins. And if McCain wins because you wouldn't vote for Obama, then you supported McCain getting into office.
"Before we all torpedo the best candidate we have had in 30+ years over this FISA thing, be aware of the two facts: (1) there is a long-established government contractor immunity doctrine in American law & what the telecoms did after 9-11 in obeying government demands for compliance is right in stride with that doctrine, and (2) in any event, the federal government is likely required to indemnify the telcos for any judgment or settlement they'd have to pay. Is this really the make-or-break litmus-test the netroots is clamoring for? No way. Is this just another example of liberals eating their own? You betcha."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202676.php
I heard some analyst on NPR say that this law may still leave a loop hole to go after the telcos - not with lawsuits (civil), but with criminal penalties. May be a stretch, but worth some hope come January.
"stop looking for a candidate that is 100% pure on every issue you care about"
Oh, for heaven's sake! This isn't 10% impure--this is a flat-out cave-in on a major issue. Of course it hurts! Sure, I'm thinking strategically, but I sure wish I didn't have to.
"Hold your nose and vote" and fulfill the self fulfilling prophecy.
The only way third parties are ever going to matter is if you people start voting for them
Just keep shopping.
If we don't keep shopping, "they've" won.
Anyway, maybe I am a conspiracy nut, but I am not so sure that it matters if we vote anymore -- even for the lesser of the evils.
I think this sums it up:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks
I know that it is satire, but there was plenty of truth in Honoré Daumier's works too.