Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

[sacp81170a]

I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but it's been going on for years and so far there are no reports of people killed by chunks of falling sky. Besides, there's not a damn thing you, I, or anybody else can do about it 'cept whine and handwring.

Exactly. So why make such a big deal of it now? Why didn't somebody raise a big stink years ago? My theory: the politicians know that the attention span of the American public will hold up for about 30 minutes, if you include commercials. Raise the issue for political gain in the short term and then let it slide quietly back under the public's radar. Dems are political whores for doing this, Repubs will whore themselves to justify it "for our safety from the evil terrorists." In the meantime, the shackles grow imperceptibly stronger.

Ever go noodling for catfish? I have. The best way to do it isn't to immediately grab the fish when you feel him, especially a big one. The best way is to gently slide a string into his mouth and out through the gills without disturbing him. Then, once you've grabbed the end of the string with your other hand, you haul him out of the undercut in the bank where you found him. Works pretty slick.

 

[mercedesrules]

Hasn't everybody heard of Echelon and Carnivore? This is old news and has been going on for years.

Were those warrantless?

 

[sacp81170a]

Were those warrantless?

http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

Check out the report on the provided link and decide for yourself as regards Echelon. I believe Echelon has been used in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments by every president from LBJ on. Don't remember if Carnivore even really got off the ground. I'll have to do some research.

Edit: From Wikipedia

"Assistant FBI Director Donald Kerr has been quoted as saying:

The Carnivore device works much like commercial "sniffers" and other network diagnostic tools used by ISPs every day, except that it provides the FBI with a unique ability to distinguish between communications which may be lawfully intercepted and those which may not. For example, if a court order provides for the lawful interception of one type of communication (e.g., e-mail), but excludes all other communications (e.g., online shopping) the Carnivore tool can be configured to intercept only those e-mails being transmitted either to or from the named subject. ...is a very specialized network analyzer or "sniffer" which runs as an application program on a normal personal computer under the Microsoft Windows operating system. It works by "sniffing" the proper portions of network packets and copying and storing only those packets which match a finely defined filter set programmed in conformity with the court order. This filter set can be extremely complex, and this provides the FBI with an ability to collect transmissions which comply with pen register court orders, trap & trace court orders, Title III interception orders, etc.... ...It is important to distinguish now what is meant by "sniffing." The problem of discriminating between users' messages on the Internet is a complex one. However, this is exactly what Carnivore does. It does NOT search through the contents of every message and collect those that contain certain key words like "bomb" or "drugs." It selects messages based on criteria expressly set out in the court order, for example, messages transmitted to or from a particular account or to or from a particular user.

After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before.

It has been reported, as of the middle of January 2005, that the FBI has essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in favor of commercially available software."​

 

[longeyes]

The Dems' wet dream is to impeach Bush: Coitus Busheruptus. The New York Times should be hauled up on sedition charges. I'd love to see those smug weasals in irons.

And, by the way, I have very mixed feelings about Bush; he's a grave disappointment in many areas. I just wouldn't trust anyone on the Left near national security.

 

[Desertdog]

Civil liberties don’t matter much ‘after you’re dead,’ Cornyn says on spy case

Civil liberties don’t matter much ‘after you’re dead,’ Cornyn says on spy case
By Jonathan Allen
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/122005/patriot.html

Senators launched new salvos in the battle over national security and civil liberties yesterday as recent revelations of domestic spying continued to color the chamber’s stalemate on an extension of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act.

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, quoted Patrick Henry, an icon of the American Revolution, in response: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

He called Cornyn’s comments “a retreat from who we are and who we should be.”

The New York Times reported last week that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on American citizens in the United States for several years without court permission under authority granted in executive orders signed by President Bush.

“This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives,” Bush said in a rare live weekly radio address Saturday in which he acknowledged giving the NSA electronic-eavesdropping power without court approval.

Bush said yesterday that the authority derives from presidential powers granted under the Constitution and a congressional “use of force” resolution adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist assault.

“I believe this interpretation of the Constitution is both incorrect and dangerous, and I am requesting an inquiry into this issue,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

“The president’s justification … is without merit,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

Cornyn, who agreed with the White House analysis of the president’s powers, called for an investigation into how the Times obtained its information.

A small band of Republicans has joined most Senate Democrats in a filibuster of the Patriot Act reauthorization.

On Friday, the Senate rejected 52-47 a motion to cut off debate and turn to an immediate vote on the underlying legislation. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) sided with the filibusterers for procedural reasons. Under Senate rules, the motion needed 60 votes to be approved.

Since that motion went down Friday, Democrats have attempted several times by unanimous consent to extend current law for a short period, but Republicans objected to that approach each time. Bush has repeatedly called on the Senate to approve the reauthorization and has said he would not sign a short-term extension.

“If people want to play politics with the Patriot Act, it’s … not in the best interests of the country,” Bush said at a press conference yesterday.

But Feingold said blame should be directed toward Bush if provisions set to expire at the end of the year lapse.
“It’s the president who wants to play chicken here,” Feingold said.

 

[Old Dog]

Why does everyone insist on making the issue of domestic spying, and the concurrent loss of our civil liberties -- into a debate about politicians, political parties and/or government?

It's not freakin' about Pres. Bush, the NSA, Carter, Clinton, CIA, FBI, Hillary, whomever or whatever -- it's about the technology! Folks, the genie is out of the bottle ... Pandora's box is opened and the lid is missing ... the barn door's open and the livestock is miles away ...

Since the technology to do all electronic surveillance developed in a totally unrestricted climate, there's no going back. Someone said in an earlier post, "Let's just put restrictions on the NSA." How?

The technology is out there, we things get to this point, someone, somewhere will always be utilizing this technology to monitor whatever and wherever it strikes their fancy ...

 

[Flyboy]

"These are dangerous times. When we are afraid, we want to be protected, and since we cannot protect ourselves against such horrors as mass murder by bombers, we are tempted to run to the government, a government that is always willing to trade the promise of protection for our freedom, which left, as always, the question: How much freedom are we willing to relinquish for such a bald promise?
"Already the President was calling for more power, more power for the FBI. He wanted a thousand more men. And he wanted to use the army, no less, in situations like [this]. And he wanted more power to tap our phones and to invade our privacy. He wanted express authority from Congress to infiltrate the fringe groups and, in short, to snoop and to peer and to spy in the citizenry, especially on those who whold different beliefs from those that flow in the phlegmatic and murky mainstream of America. But the question remains, will we really be safer with a thousand more, or a hundred thousand more FBI agents armed with even greater power to more easily tap our phones that are already so easily tapped and to break into our homes that are no longer safe under the much-mangled exclusionary rule?"

Pretty good description of the situation, if you ask me.




Unfortunately, this passage was written in 1995. The second paragraph properly reads "...in situations like Oklahoma City." The President in question isn't Bush, it's Clinton. (From the book From Freedom to Slavery, by Gerry Spence.)

I just wouldn't trust anyone on the Left near national security.

And you're correct not to. Just don't make the mistake of trusting anyone on the Right, either.

Cancer is a funny disease, really, mostly in its treatment: chemotherapy. Ever notice how patients undergoing chemo tend to feel ill? That's because chemotherapy is a big, long word that means "we're going to shoot you full of poison, and hope it kills the cancer before it kills you." This usually works, but doctors have to be very careful in what they prescribe, and how much, lest the patient be poisoned to death.

As I posted upthread, even where the threat is real, and even where the proposed solution would, in fact, mitigate the threat--a point which I do not concede, but we'll let it stand for now--there is also a threat arising from the implementation of the proposed solution. It becomes a balancing game: the threat of a terrorist attack, weighed against the threat of a government using its new-found powers to abuse the rights of its citizens. There is little doubt that terrorism is a threat to our freedom and our way of life, and should be fought; unfortunately, the proposed solution seems to be just like chemotherapy: it stands a significant chance of killing the patient.

As for me, I just don't trust the government with that power. Too many documented cases of abuse.

 

[pax]

Do you think the lack of these express powers will prevent Clinton II/Reno II from exercising them?

A fence doesn't always stop a dog from straying, but every dog without a fence will stray, sooner or later.

If not, isn't it better to have them carefully defined and under review?

They were.

The Bush administration is doing its best to erase the "carefully defined and under review" part of the equation.

pax

 

[yucaipa]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

As long as President Bush can make the argument (honestly) and he can, that he didn't use the NSA intell to protect himself from criminal prosecution like the Clinton administration, or as a weapon against this domestic political opponents like the Nixion administration, he will have the support of a majority of the American people.

The Democrats may be able to make a case for "overstepping" his authority but,has long has there is no personal gain or advantage,the public is going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The issue is a loser for the left.

 

[shermacman]

The Bush administration is doing its best to erase the "carefully defined and under review" part of the equation.

It was the NSA that came to Bush, not the other way around. In itself, that should eliminate W's culpability in any illegal activity. Even if that is not enough, the entire congressional intelligence committee was informed.