backtop


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

RE: And what
By theapparition on 10/21/2010 1:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a mechanism in place for obtaining information, even discretely. It's called a WARRANT.

It's also not so cut and dry as you would have believe.

If the police observe a crime and the suspect then goes into his house, do they just stop chase, camp out on the lawn for the next 8hrs so someone can find a judge and get a warrant signed? You know the answer, and it's perfectly legal for them to pursue the suspect into his residence to arrest the suspect and sieze any evidence related to the crime that they observed.

So what would you have Federal authorities do. Observe a suspected terrorist, but as soon a he picks up a phone, whoa....can't listen in. Maybe we can get a judge to sign a warrant tomorrow and hopefully he hasn't coordinated 2000lbs of Ricin into the NY subway system while we wait.

While I have some reservations about the abuse of warrantless wiretaps, I also don't have a tinfoil hat on believing that it is being misused on a daily basis.


RE: And what
By 91TTZ on 10/21/2010 2:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the wiretaps against US citizens performed since 9/11, you'll see that those laws were used much more often against ordinary US citizens than they were against suspected terrorists.

Really, the laws were created with good intentions in mind but are abused by police forces across the country.


RE: And what
By amanojaku on 10/21/2010 2:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also not so cut and dry as you would have believe.
Yes, it is. We have laws in place to allow the government to do its job while protecting our rights.
quote:
If the police observe a crime and the suspect then goes into his house, do they just stop chase, camp out on the lawn for the next 8hrs so someone can find a judge and get a warrant signed? You know the answer, and it's perfectly legal for them to pursue the suspect into his residence to arrest the suspect and seize any evidence related to the crime that they observed.
You just pointed out why a warrant isn't needed, although you don't understand why. An officer or other agent of the law who witnesses a crime is empowered to apprehend the criminal.

In contrast, warrants are required when no legal agent witnessed a crime. Witness testimony is untrustworthy unless compelling or corroborating evidence is discovered. That's the origin of the term "probable cause". One person who claims to have seen you bury bodies in your backyard is an unverified source, unless recording exist (compelling evidence). 10 unrelated people providing independent accounts of you burying stuff in your backyard is corroborating evidence.
quote:
So what would you have Federal authorities do. Observe a suspected terrorist, but as soon a he picks up a phone, whoa....can't listen in. Maybe we can get a judge to sign a warrant tomorrow and hopefully he hasn't coordinated 2000lbs of Ricin into the NY subway system while we wait.
Yes, because suspicion is not the same as guilt. Innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof, and all that. If you don't like it move to a country where they bust down your door for every suspected act. Just don't complain about the repair bill. Assuming you're proven innocent.
quote:
While I have some reservations about the abuse of warrantless wiretaps, I also don't have a tinfoil hat on believing that it is being misused on a daily basis.
Yes, they are. It was proven that quite a few agents in various agencies accessed personal information without just cause, some just for fun and games. The government has been caught taping internet connections and whole phone switching offices. Terrorists do their work out of the home; they don't have offices, community centers or club houses.

And you forget that just a few weeks ago an agency was caught spying on a person of Arabic decent because his is a blood relative of a (possible?) terrorist. There was no evidence at all, but he had tracking devices and other items placed without a warrant.

As a side note, this is kind of interesting:

http://www.slate.com/id/2270956/?gt1=38001


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki