Skip to main content

View Diary: FISA Fight: Here We Go Again (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What sort of wiretapping regime (0+ / 0-)

    would you put in its place?

    With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:16:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Go back to the old FISA law for starters (6+ / 0-)

      it worked fine, despite the Bushco lies.

      Seat Senator Al Franken, for the sake of MN and the country. Harry Reid, this means you!

      by NM Ward Chair on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:29:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You think thats possible? (0+ / 0-)

        How do you get a warrant for a packet-switched digital network?

        Basically, you're saying shut down the data mining program and only use it when you can develop a lead from human intelligence.

        You think thats ok?

        With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:36:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

            You would basically set back intelligence gathering to the stone age and require hiring a massive new army of spies. It's definitely doable.

            I'm sure the intelligence agencies and the FBI would love to do that. Instead of data mining, theyll just be at your supermarket.

            With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:39:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Seems to me... (12+ / 0-)

              we were doing just fine until August 6th, 2001 when W decided to ignore a little report titled...

              What was it now?

              Oh yes- Bin Ladin Determined to Attack in U.S.

              Only a coward would trade essential liberty for a sense of false security.

              •  There was not an attack on American soil after (4+ / 0-)

                September 12, 2001.  But boy did they fuck up before that!!!  I really like hearing the testimony of people listening to phone sex conversations between soldiers in the field and their lovers back home.  That makes the whole protecting the telecoms worth while.  

                Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

                by uc booker on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:52:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Do you feel less liberated now? (0+ / 0-)

                Chances are this blog conversation we are having now is passing through Israeli, German, British, Austrailian, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Canadian security as we speak. Such is the nature of packet-switched communication.

                Basically, you're being spied on by someone. There is no avoiding that, just as there is no avoiding being on camera when you leave your home.

                Think you've got privacy? Check your choicepoint file. ek hornbeck is in there.

                Do you feel spied on when you go to the grocery? I can guarantee your actions recorded without your express permission. Such is the nature of a world where everyone has a camera.

                But I suppose that is of no consequence. Youll be secure in the knowledge that the only organization in the world not spying on you is your government.

                With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

                by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:53:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hey, Israeli, German, British, (4+ / 0-)

                  Austrailian, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Canadian security: Fuck you!

                  Abolish the Homeland Scrutiny Department.

                  by hoplite9 on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:03:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yup. (8+ / 0-)

                  I don't like to be spied on by anyone, so yes that would be just fine with me.

                  And we should have laws that prevent private organizations from doing it also.

                  As for other goverments?

                  Well we kind of lost the moral high ground when we decided to torture, another policy I've observed you are just fine with excusing.

                  •  Is it okay to disagree? (0+ / 0-)

                    I assume you value that as much as you value the myth that you have privacy, correct?

                    Ever see that movie Enemy of the State? It's real.

                    Other governments don't really care about the moral position of the United States. They spy on America because they can and it makes sense. If I were China or India, I'd spy on the whole world. And so, they do.

                    But yes, I'm not ideological on "comfort" issues. By that I mean issues that regular working people couldnt give a shit about, but are quite often the province of the highly educated and comfortable. I know that most folks just want their bills paid, kids healthy, beer and barbecue on July 4. So thats why I'm a Democrat. Kinda like in Pygmalion. That bit about high morals being the province of people who can afford them. Yeah...im that girls dad.

                    Whatever works.

                    With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:47:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Enemy of the State? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nightprowlkitty, NM Ward Chair

                      Is that on the DoD DVD program where they duplicate every super weapon seen in the movies?

                      Boogedy boogedy boo.

                      Do you check your closets at night for evil monkeys?

                      •  lol (0+ / 0-)

                        nope..but i check your IP address!

                        n/t

                        With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

                        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 08:04:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          NM Ward Chair

                          Are you an Admin?

                          I don't notice your name on the masthead.

                          •  Cmon man.. (0+ / 0-)

                            Dude, the point is this-

                            We need a new understanding of privacy for the digital age. I'm not saying anyone is out to get YOU or ME or anyone. What I'm saying is that the idea that you have privacy anymore is a MYTH. It wouldn't take me very long to find out who you are and everything about you right here from my laptop. Now I don't want to know because I don't care. But if I were an interested party, like a creditor or a federal agent, I could know. Yes, I can't break into your house. But the fact is I DONT NEED TO. With a name and an address, I can buy your choicepoint file and know all your buying habits.
                            These sites that crack cell-phone bills are plentiful in Russia, and outside anyones jurisdiction. Social Security numbers are all over health insurance policies, loan applications, you name it. If youre plugged into this system, you have no privacy. Thats modern life.

                            So clinging to this myth that somehow the NSA has engaged in some egregious anal inspection and violation of privacy because they happened to accidentally pick up a cell phone call that was routed through Montreal (because its a packet switched network) is to me just silly and asinine.
                            Meanwhile ChoicePoint is selling your buying habits to the direct mail people. Thats why you get letters from lawyers right after you get speeding tickets out of state.

                            I can understand why they want the program. I can understand the technical pitfalls. I also understand that it can be wide ranging and out of control, lest it be abused. There has to be a balance. It can't be knee-jerk one way or the other.

                            But framing it as a matter of "our freedoms" when that State DL you have in your pocket is frickin public record all over the world, your email is read by ad-bots every day, and every spy agency outside the U.S. is ALREADY spying on you...well, to me it all ads up to irrational jingoism.

                            With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

                            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 08:19:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. The fight to restore privacy has only begun. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            James Kresnik

                            You may, MAY, be correct that many Americans have already given up private information but that does not make it right, much less ideal.  It is time to give serious thought to creating privacy spheres for individuals and families.  It can be done.  We have the tools.  It's a question of political will.

                            Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

                            by maxschell on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:45:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  You're right about the Enemy of the State (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      James Kresnik

                      nightmare being real, but the rest of what you said is an open, engraved invitation to tyranny.

                      most folks just want their bills paid, kids healthy, beer and barbecue on July 4. So thats why I'm a Democrat. Kinda like in Pygmalion. That bit about high morals being the province of people who can afford them. Yeah...im that girls dad.

                      May be how an anesthetized public is now, but that doesn't make the threat of tyranny, or its inevitable abuses once in power, any less real.

                      Maybe I am an over-educated snob, as you suggest; but I am close enough to my roots to recognize that once the government turns fascist because we allowed free reign to arbitrarily deprive people of their individual liberty, there won't be any beer and barbecue on July 4. There will be kids and parents disappearing; there will be assassination of the government's political opponents; there will be mass round ups and re-education.

                      If you are fine with watching that kind of world descend upon us, shame on you. No good, patriotic American would stand by and allow the shredding of the constitution like that.

                      •  Oh Jesus. Tyranny? Really? (0+ / 0-)

                        You really think theres going to be tyranny if the government hears you asking your wife whats for dinner?

                        With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

                        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 08:05:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Snooping by government agents has a freezing (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          James Kresnik

                          effect on people's behavior and speech. It erodes the willingness of citizen's to disagree with the government and be active politically. The stultifying effect on public discourse enables further abuses by the government. It's a cycle that only deepens over time.

                          Yes, there is going to be tyranny if the government listens to my private conversations because, having done so, they are then free to use those conversations against me.

                          That is the connection statist apologists like yourself always try to avoid making. That is why the constitution is so damn clear that the people are to be secure in the persons, papers and effects.

                        •  No Fly List n/t (0+ / 0-)

                          - A fried California Roll sounds stupidly good. I mean, it's fried. It's automatically good. - aclockworkprple

                          by James Kresnik on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 02:34:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, but only MY government can act to curtail (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik, NM Ward Chair

                  my freedom.

                  All those other countries can go to hell, it's the American government that can use innocent conversations to entrap, imprison, bankrupt and isolate me. It's MY government that can destroy me.

                  Thus the constitution's concern with preventing the government from doing that to people.

                  It's called limited government, and whatever the hell else the rest of the world does, I am a liberal because I want the government to PROTECT the rights of the people, not find fucking loopholes to destroy them.

        •  Datamining telco records never took a warrant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skid, NM Ward Chair

          DrugWar rulings in the early '70s held who calls who records not protected by the 4th Amendment, because you've  given the information up to a 3d party, the telco. The Congress responded by creating a Statutory privacy regime, requiring not a warrant, but a certification to the Court by the Attorney General or designee, that the records are needed for a bonafide criminal investigation.

          It appears that this certification, which must be renewed after 6 months, was at the center of the Ashcroft/Comey hospital caper.



          The Fear Machine has been turned up to eight.

          by ben masel on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:47:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nor should it. (0+ / 0-)

            The problem occurs when you are doing as the NSA is doing, which is a sort of pre-mining.

            I'm not under criminial investigation. But I might send something across the network that gets flagged for further study. As soon as they start looking, my privacy has been violated under the old privacy regime.

            Okay. So in the old days its pretty simple. I call Las Vegas and bam, an exclusively domestic phonecall. I send a letter to Houston, its all domestic.

            If I call to New Jersey from my cell phone, that call might pass through Toronto, where the NSA happens to be legally listening. If my call gets picked up, theyve violated my privacy, right or wrong?

            With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 07:09:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, the courts were wrong. Just another (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Kresnik

              example of how the so-called "drug wars" have warped our system and corrupted the courts.

              Because I have records with the phone company shouldn't legitimize the government's poking into my affairs to see what they can find, or to entrap me.

              You seem quite comfortable with government intrusion into every aspect of your life. I am not, nor should anyone be. The government has the ability to destroy me, or you, in ways that no private party can. Therefore, the government must be restrained.

              That is the core value of the constitution.

        •  Absofugginglutely. (3+ / 0-)

          Keystroke monitoring traffic on the internet will be used again for political purposes without protecting us from anything.

          Someone in the future won't be able to restrain themselves from peeking at your traffic.

          Give every American a fair chance at the race of life - A. Lincoln and B. Obama

          by captainlaser on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:52:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What makes you think someone isnt (0+ / 0-)

            already peeking?

            Why do you think you are NOW operating under this shield of privacy inviolate?

            With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 07:11:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  EXACTLY the reason we need to act now to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NM Ward Chair

            reign this in, or it just keeps getting worse.

            •  Not just reigned in, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foxwizard

              but almost completely torn down.

              Electronic surveillance should require a warrant within hours after surveillance begins, an excruciatingly detailed evidence, independent audits for each and every piece of data collected, immediate and complete disposal of non warranted data and a full and public accounting of all actions involving the gathered intelligence before, during and after prosecution. We aren't getting any of that with our current framework and BBB's suggestion would only make it harder to define, much less implement government abuses that hurt innocent people.

              Britain is implementing the system that BBB lusts for, but total surveillance is neither decreasing crime or making the lives of the ordinary citizen any safer. It is, however, making it much easier for various authorities to gather compromising photos for personal amusement private data-mining.

              Anything that makes the government's job easier will also make it easier for government abuse, and by extension, private abuse.

              - A fried California Roll sounds stupidly good. I mean, it's fried. It's automatically good. - aclockworkprple

              by James Kresnik on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 02:52:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  the old FISA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Foxwizard

      was bad enough. The FISA court already essentially rubberstamped any request.

      IMO, normal warrants from normal federal district court judges should be fine.  I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with the government providing a certification of exigent circumstances to go and get a warrant 24 or 48 hours after the fact.

      •  So, what youre saying is (0+ / 0-)

        shut down the data mining altogether and only get federal surveillance warrant when you have developed information from human intelligence.

        Am I reading you right?

        With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:38:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So what you're saying is (6+ / 0-)

          The only way to safeguard our liberties is to let the executive listen in to any communication at any time without any judicial oversight.

          Am I reading you right?

          •  Accept that not everyone is against wiretaps on (0+ / 0-)

            dKos.

            Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

            by uc booker on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:53:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all. Not in the least. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm saying that I don't think its unreasonable, due to the nature of the technology, that we make updates in what "liberties" means.

            For example, I know that when I use Gmail that Google is reading my email. In return for the free email service, I relinquish some of my privacy rights. This seems fair and I don't feel it to be needlessly intrusive. If I don't want them reading my email, I'll deliver my message in person. You didn't need such waivers in the age of snail mail, but you do now.

            Similarly, conversations over cell phones could be similarly waived.

            The nature of digital communication changes the game in terms of privacy and I think its high time we come to grips with it.

            If I see you on the subway, I can record you with my cellphone, broadcast you to the world...hell even set up a website and make million dollars. Just of you sleeping on the subway. No broadcast waivers or anything. Such is the nature of life when everyone has a camera.

            So, with respect to security, I think the NSA makes a very good case as to why it is impossible for it to distingish foriegn and domestic data packets. I can totally understand how inadvertently the word "al-anbar" being spoken by a marine in mosul could set off a red flag at the NSA's computers, even if he is just telling his wife "I'm in mosul baby." Because at the NSA, its "in" "baby" "mosul" "babe" all of wich may arrive at different intervals. And so, to see whats going on, they zero in on that data stream.

            BAM. right there. privacy violation. Could be a marine. Could be al qaeda. Dont know.

            Should they stop and go get a FISA warrant? Could happen 1000 times a day. Practical or no?

            Personally, I don't feel privacy any more. I know my name is on millions of databases, bouncing all around the world all the time.

            So, we need some sort of international digital rights convention or something to sort through these issues. All I'm saying is, i'm not going to have a knee-jerk the black helicopters are out to get me and ive been damaged by the fact that someone heard me having phone sex with my wife moment. I see where the NSA is coming from.

            Thats all. Maybe this is a software issue that could be solved with better algorithms. But if a computer is listening and not a person...are you still private?

            With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:16:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  your text contradicts your title /nt (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brooklynbadboy, Guest from EU
            •  PGP encryption will protect your mail (0+ / 0-)

              from being read by google. I'm pretty sure, they aren't going to do the effort it costs them to break the encryption. I think the 64 bit version is illegal in the US, but who will sue you to use illegal encryption on mails, he is legally not allowed to read?

              •  128-bit is illegal but 64-bit is fine. (0+ / 0-)

                I don't worry about Google reading my email because I don't expect privacy for messages that may pass all around the world.

                Besides, the NSA computers unravel 64-bit with ease.

                With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

                by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Seldom have heard such malarky spelled out (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Kresnik

              so well.

              For example, I know that when I use Gmail that Google is reading my email. In return for the free email service, I relinquish some of my privacy rights. This seems fair and I don't feel it to be needlessly intrusive.

              Google doesn't have the power to destroy you, without recourse, like the government does. You can make such a bargain with Google; but no such bargain with the government is possible. The government WILL use that information against you, and you will find yourself imprisoned (or worse) without recourse.

              If I see you on the subway, I can record you with my cellphone, broadcast you to the world...hell even set up a website and make million dollars. Just of you sleeping on the subway. No broadcast waivers or anything. Such is the nature of life when everyone has a camera.

              Same thing; only the government can use that photo to incriminate you and imprison you without recourse. It matters not if a 12 year old snaps my picture. It matters a great deal if is an FBI agent on a fishing expedition because he has to fill an arrest quota.

              So, with respect to security, I think the NSA makes a very good case as to why it is impossible for it to distingish foriegn and domestic data packets. I can totally understand how inadvertently the word "al-anbar" being spoken by a marine in mosul could set off a red flag at the NSA's computers, even if he is just telling his wife "I'm in mosul baby." Because at the NSA, its "in" "baby" "mosul" "babe" all of wich may arrive at different intervals. And so, to see whats going on, they zero in on that data stream.

              IF it is intercepted because it is routed through a foreign country, once the source is identified as a citizen, the information should be destroyed. THAT is technologically possible.

              Personally, I don't feel privacy any more. I know my name is on millions of databases, bouncing all around the world all the time.

              It's not privacy per se' that is at issue here; it is privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The constitution doesn't pretend to provide privacy from private parties, but most assuredly makes it a point to provide privacy from the government.

              Again, the government has unique powers for the destruction of individuals and society. That is why the government must be restrained.

            •  You're quite the idealist, (0+ / 0-)

              happily living in a fantasy world, where government overreach and casual abuse of surveillance power is a rare outlier, never likely to affect anyone. I guess you've never read up on J. Edgar Hoover or the early FBI. Anything that makes the next J. Edgar Hoover's job easier should give any student of effective and humane government a nice, long pause.

              - A fried California Roll sounds stupidly good. I mean, it's fried. It's automatically good. - aclockworkprple

              by James Kresnik on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 02:58:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm saying exactly what I wrote, period. (0+ / 0-)

          Your tactic of completely and utterly ignoring the exceedingly clear statement I wrote; followed by "so what you're saying is [insert your pet thesis, which bears no relationship to my comment or the thread]"; is crap.

    •  How about NONE? Seriously, people, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      WHY does there have to be a wire tapping regime?

      Pre-FISA, the FBI would have to have probable cause, get a warrant and eavesdrop on one target.

      What the hell's wrong with the government actually having to show proof there might be a crime before getting to break our privacy?

      This is all fucked up, when everyone is convinced the government HAS to be able to spy on its own citizens. It's the very definition of tyranny!

      •  Thinking about what you are saying. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Foxwizard

        My earlier positions was far too accommodating to government abusers. There is nothing wrong, or ineffective about narrowing down the list of warranted suspects to single persons, as opposed to every citizen with a pulse and an electronic communications device.

        - A fried California Roll sounds stupidly good. I mean, it's fried. It's automatically good. - aclockworkprple

        by James Kresnik on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 03:02:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site