Congress pisses all over the 4th Amendment

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

So where are all the defenders of the 2nd?? They get very up in arms (pun) about changes and laws connected to it. I guess it just takes $50 million to change the Bill of Rights. I'm ashamed of this country right now, and pissed that neither candidate has the balls to address this topic in public.

Basically this is the full and complete embrace of Big Brother in the USA. This is the end of personal data security and privacy. Nothing you own will ever be safe if the Gov't feels they should look at it.

This is bullshit. All these telecoms need to be dragged into court as does the White House for violating American Citizen 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20fisa.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnlx=1213964191-DVSSeUZbkQCte/EprSVzsA&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Congress Strikes Deal to Overhaul Wiretap Law

Quote

After months of wrangling, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress struck a deal on Thursday to overhaul the rules on the government's wiretapping powers and provide what amounts to legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The deal, expanding the government's powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, would strengthen the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign targets. It would also allow them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national security information would otherwise be lost. If approved, as appears likely, the agreement would be the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years.

Quote

Just in the first three months of 2008, recent lobbyist disclosure statements reveal that AT&T spent $5.2 million in lobbyist fees (putting it well ahead of its 2007 pace, when it spent just over $17 million). In the first quarter of 2008, Verizon spent $4.8 million on lobbyist fees, while Comcast spent $2.6 million. So in the first three months of this year, those three telecoms -- which would be among the biggest beneficiaries of telecom amnesty (right after the White House) -- spent a combined total of almost $13 million on lobbyists. They're on pace to spend more than $50 million on lobbying this year -- just those three companies.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Darius11 12]

I don’t get it, They’re trying to say because the government asked them to violate our rights and brake the law the companies should not be punished.

Aren’t the laws to protect are personal freedoms just for situations like this? If the law can be bent at the will of the government then it is no longer a democracy.

Lets not forget that not all companies asked agreed some actually showed some Balls and did the right thing.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I don’t get it, They’re trying to say because the government asked them to violate our rights and brake the law the companies should not be punished.

I equate the telecoms defense to this:
"Just following orders"

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[lawrocket 3]

I don't necessarily have a problem with giving immunity to companies or individuals who do what the government suggests.

Let's say the feds some to you and wants to ask you questions about your roommate. You answer said questions. They then ask whether or not you'd consent to planting a bug in the living room. By the way, you may be an accessory, they tell you, but if you cooperate, they will make sure that charges aren't pressed against you.

Now, facing that situation, how would you like the prospect of defending a lawsuit by your roommate accusing you of violating his constitutional rights? You'll probably win, and it may cost you $50k to win it, but you'll win.

I am NOT saying the phone companies did anything wrong. not by a longshot. I'm rather big on the 4th Amendment.

However, what I would suggest is a law that does NOT provide immunity to the phone companies. Wanna make a law that will cause the government to behave? How about a law that requires the government to indemnify and defend communications company that act in accordance with government request?

That is, if the government asks for and gets a wiretap that turns out to be unconstitutional, the phone companies are entitled to indemnity from the agency that asked for the wiretap.

There won't be many illegal wiretap requests, this much I tell you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AWL71 0]

"The deal, expanding the government's powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, would strengthen the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign targets. It would also allow them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national security information would otherwise be lost. If approved, as appears likely, the agreement would be the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years."

I understand the principle behind your frustration but do you think you or I are going to be wiretapped? If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned. If some CIA agent wiretaps my home phone and hears me and my wife talk about whats for dinner and what time the Little League game starts has my right to privacy been violated? Technically, yes. But has my quality of life been affected? I don't think so.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I understand the principle behind your frustration but do you think you or I are going to be wiretapped? If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned. If some CIA agent wiretaps my home phone and hears me and my wife talk about whats for dinner and what time the Little League game starts has my right to privacy been violated? Technically, yes. But has my quality of life been affected? I don't think so.

Sorry to say that I was expecting this to be the first response. People care more about what Rev Wright did or didn't say and will go on about it passionately for weeks on end. But when it comes to removing one of our basic American rights they are flippant.

Go back and look up the McCarthy era again. This allows the same thing to happen, and worse. It may not impact you today but it will down the line. It's a slippery slope.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

"The deal, expanding the government's powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, would strengthen the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign targets. It would also allow them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national security information would otherwise be lost. If approved, as appears likely, the agreement would be the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years."

I understand the principle behind your frustration but do you think you or I are going to be wiretapped? If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned. If some CIA agent wiretaps my home phone and hears me and my wife talk about whats for dinner and what time the Little League game starts has my right to privacy been violated? Technically, yes. But has my quality of life been affected? I don't think so.

Those conversations may be innocent enough...but what about having them overhear you and your wife arguing, or what about heated discussions that involve personal opinion of the current administration - things that could be interepreted as threatening and grounds for action by those watching you..... what then?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

There won't be many illegal wiretap requests, this much I tell you.

They will be given immunity for everything they have done on this. I don't think people full understand the extent of what was handed over. EVERYTHING WAS HANDED OVER. There is nothing you have done on the web in the last few years that has not been STORED for use for the government. They used loopholes to go beyond breaking the 4th Amendment. This is what I am trying to point out, the slippery slope on this has ALREADY begun. There is no need to request a wiretap, the info is already on hand for them.

The telecoms spent so much on it because they know exactly how far this has gone and it scares them of the possible repercussions.

Here ya go, it's a couple years old now, but this is how they went beyond what was originally asked:
A proposed new FBI program would skirt federal laws by paying private companies to hold millions of phone and Internet records which the bureau is barred from keeping itself, experts say.

The $5 million project would apparently pay private firms to store at least two years' worth of telephone and Internet activity by millions of Americans, few of whom would ever be considered a suspect in any terrorism, intelligence or criminal matter.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

I understand the principle behind your frustration but do you think you or I are going to be wiretapped? If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned. If some CIA agent wiretaps my home phone and hears me and my wife talk about whats for dinner and what time the Little League game starts has my right to privacy been violated? Technically, yes. But has my quality of life been affected? I don't think so.

Sorry to say that I was expecting this to be the first response. People care more about what Rev Wright did or didn't say and will go on about it passionately for weeks on end. But when it comes to removing one of our basic American rights they are flippant.

Go back and look up the McCarthy era again. This allows the same thing to happen, and worse. It may not impact you today but it will down the line. It's a slippery slope.

I understand that it is a slippery slope. But I also feel that our national security forces need ways to gather information. People like you or I do not draw much attention from the government.

True, alot of people were targets of power abuse during the McCarthy era. If the government wants to target someone they can do it with or without wiretaps.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I understand that it is a slippery slope. But I also feel that our national security forces need ways to gather information. People like you or I do not draw much attention from the government.

Do you know that the former head of the CIA has said that the changes to FISA are not needed at all. The changes will have zero impact on their ability to do their job and help secure this country.

edit: trying to find exact quote now, I remember watching it live

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Darius11 12]

What you are saying goose against what this country was founded on. You are also assuming that the government is always right or is always doing the right thing. The laws of personal freedoms and privacy are set not to just protect us from others but also the government it self. In a democracy no one should be above the law. I am sure many criminals try top rationalizes their actions however braking the law is braking the law.

Again some companies refused to brake the law, some didn’t. They had a choice and they made the decision to make money on government contracts and violate our rights. There is no excuse for that.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[brenthutch 388]

Of the over 250,000,000 americans, can you even name one citizen who has had their rights violated?


I didnt think so.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Of the over 250,000,000 americans, can you even name one citizen who has had their rights violated?

You are kidding me, right? Under the guise of the Patriot Act plenty of rights have been violated.

During an organized and approved war protest, Chicago Police arrested large crowds of the peaceful protesters. One was my ex's friend and we were unable to locate him nor was his lawyer. He was being held as a domestic terrorist and denied access to his lawyer under the Patriot Act. They eventually let him go without any notice or paperwork completed.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

I understand that it is a slippery slope. But I also feel that our national security forces need ways to gather information. People like you or I do not draw much attention from the government.

Do you know that the former head of the CIA has said that the changes to FISA are not needed at all. The changes will have zero impact on their ability to do their job and help secure this country.

No, I did not. Could you post a link? I would be interested in reading that.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 2,442]

>If some CIA agent wiretaps my home phone and hears me and my
>wife talk about whats for dinner and what time the Little League game
>starts has my right to privacy been violated? Technically, yes. But has my
>quality of life been affected? I don't think so.

A lot of Americans over the year have fought and died to protect your rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Given that, I thought you might be more concerned about that than your "quality of life." Many of us consider that Constitution to be pretty important, even if its loss doesn't affect what you have for dinner.

Let's take another case. Let's say a law is passed requiring all guns to be registered with the federal government. Simple web-based registration. That's not going to impact your "quality of life" either. Would you be equally OK with that?

[nerdgirl 0]

For the primary data addicts, a little context on what is being wiretapped, what kind of crimes, and how much it costs.

According to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 2007 Wiretap Report to Congress, which was released in May:

“A total of 2,208 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2007, an increase of 20 percent compared to the number terminated in 2006. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities fell less than 1 percent to 457. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials grew 27 percent to 1,751, with 24 states providing reports, 1 more than in 2006.”

The report does not include data “involving sensitive and/or sealed matters.” Not all would be terrorism-related, either.

The Report offers this caveat: “Statistics indicate that if all intercepts undertaken for federal investigations in 2007 were reported, the 2007 Wiretap Report would not reflect any decrease in the use of court-approved electronic surveillance by the agencies.”

It has been speculated – & I agree it’s a very reasonable speculation – that given that Federal wiretaps reported are *below* the ten year average, it's likely that the actual number of wiretaps is higher. How much higher is subject to debate.

Other figures:

“Installed wiretaps were in operation an average of 44 days per wiretap in 2007, compared to 40 days in 2006.”

Average cost $48,000 per wiretap, of ~$100M for 2007.

Most common wiretap location, 94% (!), was a “portable device, carried by/on individual,” i.e., cell phone, blackberry, etc.

There is no “terrorism” in the report’s Table 3 “Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted.” Two options: terrorism is part of the “other” category, which, at the federal and state level combined, accounted for only 30 wiretaps (1.4%) or terrorism-related wiretaps are part of the “sensitive and/or sealed matters” category. My speculation is a little of both.

81% of wiretaps were related to narcotics offenses (as the most serious crime for which the wiretap was sought).

The next largest category is homicide and assault (6.0%) followed by racketeering (4.4%) and gambling (2.5%).

Interesting (imo) observation regarding trend in arrest versus conviction rates: while # arrests through information obtained through wiretaps is approximately linear, the percentage of convictions has declined steadily from ~55% to just over 30% across the 10y period covered in the report (see attached graphic.) While some lag is not unexpected, as convictions sometimes take months or rarely years after an intercept, it’s still a real trend. (The issue isn’t that all arrests will not necessarily yield convictions but the steady declining trend of convictions/arrest rate.)
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

No, I did not. Could you post a link? I would be interested in reading that.

Trying to find it now. The context was that all the information to protect our country is there and accessible. However the refusal of the CIA/NSA/FBI to communicate and share that information is the real issue. He said no changes to FISA were needed but the sharing of information needed to be forced.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[base428 1]

And don't forget that phone companies get PAID by the US Government to assist with wiretaps. It's in their best business interest to "just follow orders".

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[AWL71 0]

Quote

>If some CIA agent wiretaps my home phone and hears me and my
>wife talk about whats for dinner and what time the Little League game
>starts has my right to privacy been violated? Technically, yes. But has my
>quality of life been affected? I don't think so.

A lot of Americans over the year have fought and died to protect your rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Given that, I thought you might be more concerned about that than your "quality of life." Many of us consider that Constitution to be pretty important, even if its loss doesn't affect what you have for dinner.

Let's take another case. Let's say a law is passed requiring all guns to be registered with the federal government. Simple web-based registration. That's not going to impact your "quality of life" either. Would you be equally OK with that?

The constitution is important to me as well. So is common sense. I am not concerned with the government tapping my phone lines. It would be a waste of their time.

I would not want to register my guns and I would fight the passage of that law. The example does not really relate.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[pirana 0]

I disagree. Wars these days appear to be fights over resources, nationalist/separatist tendencies, and border security.

What's the problem with registering guns? We do it for cars, boats, planes, dogs, cats, real estate, and a boatload of other goodies. Why not guns? Don't at least some states already require registration of all firearms? Do any record all ammo purchased?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[brenthutch 388]

After the protesters protestors sat down on Chicago Avenue just north of Michigan Avenue, buses rolled up, and police began walking, dragging and carrying protesters from the group and arresting them.

"There is a distinction between a war protest and civil disobedience," Chicago Police spokesman Pat Camden said. "Civil disobedience will not be tolerated."

See, Just cops doing their job. No black helocopters no wire taps no CIA special ops teams. Again nothing to do with the patriot act

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned.

The classic argument against the fourth amendment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned.

The classic argument against the fourth amendment.

Only where (national security) wiretaps are concerned.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned.

The classic argument against the fourth amendment.

Only where (national security) wiretaps are concerned.

If there is valid reason to believe that there is a legitimate to national security, then a warrant can be obtained without need to violate or weaken the fourth amendment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,442]

>The constitution is important to me as well. So is common sense. I am
>not concerned with the government tapping my phone lines.

You have just contradicted yourself. Either you support the Fourth Amendment or you don't.

>I would not want to register my guns and I would fight the passage of that law.

Why? How would it affect your quality of life? You're not a terrorist or a criminal, so the government would have no problem with you keeping your guns.