Print 80 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Oct 29 at 11:44 AM

The key issue with the Obama administration's new proposal to strengthen warrantless spying initiatives is multifold. First, the proposal could damage U.S. telecommunications businesses.   (Source: Associated Press)

Further, on top of the questionable nature on violating privacy rights of U.S. citizens talking to foreign citizens (currently legal under the Patriot Act), it's virtually impossible to tell a foreign citizen using a foreign service from a U.S. one. Thus communications between two U.S. citizens could be intercepted and the citizens' privacy rights illegally violated.
Plan would fine companies that don't pay to assist government in warranted and warrantless spying on U.S. citizens

Few would argue the need for the U.S. government to protect itself and critical domestic infrastructure from foreign attacks.  And fewer still would debate whether our country should use high-tech surveillance to monitor countries like China and Russia that have shown a propensity to attack unprotected U.S. systems when they have the chance.

More controversial, however, is the domestic spying efforts closely tied to the terrorism.  Namely the National Security Agency (NSA), under the Patriot Act of 2001, was given the right warrantless wiretaps of calls between U.S. and foreign citizens.  That alone was controversial enough, but an expose in The New York Times showed that domestic calls between two
U.S. citizens were also being intercepted, in what the NSA dubbed an "accident".

A special Obama administration task force consisting of U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, NSA, Federal Bureau of Investigations, local law enforcement, and more is looking to reinforce warrantless wiretap.  The move is perhaps unsurprising, considering that the council shares many of the same experts that mastermind President George W. Bush's original Patriot Act.

The group is proposing new legislation designed at reinforcing the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law published during the Clinton administration that demanded that telecommunications prepare to begin surveillance of suspects as soon as a court order is issued. 

Under the proposed changes, telecoms would be mandated to not only prepare for such instances, but also for warrantless wiretapping as spelled out under the Patriot Act.  Those telecoms who complied fully would be rewarded with undisclosed incentives, while those who resist or were slow to comply would face fines or other penalties.

Albert Gidari Jr., a lawyer who represents telecommunications firms, tells The New York Times that such legislation would be devastating to the civilian telecommunications industry.  He states, "The government’s answer is 'don't deploy the new services — wait until the government catches up.  But that’s not how it works. Too many services develop too quickly, and there are just too many players in this now."

Previously detailed nuances of the plan call for the government also to gain new warrantless surveillance powers over other communications resources such as email (e.g. Gmail), text messages (including encrypted services, like RIM's), social networks (e.g. Facebook), and internet forums.

Multiple issues surround the overarching proposal.  One is in the potential economic damage it could cause the free market at a time when it is already struggling to recover.

A second issue is perhaps the most critical one.  Under current legal precedent, U.S. citizens can only have their Constitutional rights annulled if they are communicating with suspicious foreign citizens.  However, to determine what users of foreign services are actually foreign citizens is almost impossible as foreign telecoms and internet firms have no real necessity to comply with U.S. requests for information.  Thus U.S. citizens use foreign cell phones, operating on foreign web sites, or using foreign-based email services, may have their Constitutional rights violated
even while communicating with other U.S. citizens.

There is no clear solution to this problem.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By IamJedi on 10/21/2010 10:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
To put this in simple terms, this is bullsh*t. Honestly, having my rights taken away because I speak to somebody that is a suspected terrorist, and I might not even know? If that is the case, the United States government may as well do away with the Constitution altogether, as I see no point in having it, if they can so willingly do away with my rights because I spoke with a suspected terrorist. You know, I can appreciate the United States government trying to protect its ass, but there are times when I really do wish people would rise up and demand control of their government back.

RE: dasf
By The Raven on 10/21/2010 10:58:43 AM , Rating: 4
Go to a tea party.

I know people think of whack jobs like Chrissy-O or Palin when they hear tea party these days thanks to the media. But they are just exploiting the tea party movement to trick people into voting for republicans.

True tea partiers are just that. Focused on taxes and spending. There is no discussion of gay marraige, abortion, or other social issues.

There also most likely won't be talk of wire tapping either, but if you want to see people taking a stand: there it is.

If you want to see people who are upset about gov't intrusion in general, go to a libertarian convention/rally ;-)

RE: dasf
By Ammohunt on 10/21/2010 2:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to see people who are upset about gov't intrusion in general, go to a libertarian convention/rally ;-)

talk about Whack jobs.....

RE: dasf
By The Raven on 10/22/2010 11:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
With a name like Ammohunt, I hope you are not kidding.

But if you aren't I commend the humor of your post. Who would want to be labeled as average in today's America?

RE: dasf
By The Raven on 10/22/2010 12:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
With a name like Ammohunt, I hope you are kidding .


"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki