The Twist you all have been waiting for...

[YASNY]

I still don't understand why everyone is so up in arms arms about Bush doing this and they just brush off or ignore the fact the Clinton did it too.

[Balta1701]

So, if you take a subway somewhere and you don't have a weapon in your bag, nothing happens to you and you're allowed to go on your way. 

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that there is no expectation of privacy in phone or e-mail conversations anymore.  If you're not plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge via conversations with your buddy in Saudi Arabia, what exactly do you have to worry about?  Just curious.

The reason you have to worry about this sort of surveillance, specifically warrantless surveillance, is that there is no way to know how the information obtained under the surveillance will be used.

 

If a FISA warrant is successfully obtained, like it is over 99% of the time it is requested, then that means a court somewhere judged on some unknown grounds that there was reason for there to be surveillance. In other words, it's not just surveillance for the Hell of it. The Feds are looking for specific information, and there are rules in place for what information they can obtain and use.

 

On the other hand, without a warrant, there's no limit to the information which can be obtained through domestic spying. This is the Watergate type stuff...if the Feds don't have to get a warrant, what exactly is out there which stops them from saying that the election of John Kerry would be a threat to national security that must be stopped? If they don't have to go out there and get a warrant...actually prove to someone that there's some plausible reason why the government wants data from a specific source, then there's no limits at all to the data which can be collected. What's to stop 1 company from making a discovery, emailing schematics for it, the NSA getting their hands on those schematics, and them being secretly passed on to a person contributing to the party in power?

 

I'd like to believe these things are impossible, but we know from the 1970's that they've already happened once when the Feds were given the power to look into anything they wanted. Information is a very powerful thing, and if you give people the ability to acquire and use information without restrictions, then you can't just assume that the people with that power will decide that they have restrictions and follow them.

[NorthSideSox72]

I still don't understand why everyone is so up in arms arms about Bush doing this and they just brush off or ignore the fact the Clinton did it too.

 

I, for one, am not brushing off echelon or any other illegalities. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. I could care less what party the President is, if they break the law (which I believe to be happening here), they need to be held accountable.

[YASNY]

I, for one, am not brushing off echelon or any other illegalities.  It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.  I could care less what party the President is, if they break the law (which I believe to be happening here), they need to be held accountable.

 

So, why wasn't it a big deal then? Why didn't the media jump on on that with both feet like they are now? Where was liberal voice when Clinton was trashing the Constitution?

[WCSox]

what exactly is out there which stops them from saying that the election of John Kerry would be a threat to national security that must be stopped?

 

Now that's just silly. :rolly

 

The reason you have to worry about this sort of surveillance, specifically warrantless surveillance, is that there is no way to know how the information obtained under the surveillance will be used.

 

I agree that definitley needs to be addressed. There would definitely need to be some "check and balance" via the Judicial branch to keep the Federal government from acting in a totalitarian manner. But I think it's wrong to automatically assume that screening phone calls or e-mail without a warrant is, by definition, a threat to our rights and that the idea is inherently un-American.

Edited January 6, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

So, why wasn't it a big deal then?  Why didn't the media jump on on that with both feet like they are now?  Where was liberal voice when Clinton was trashing the Constitution?

Based on the testimony of George Tenet before Congress, Echelon was a fundamentally different animal than what George W. Bush's program entails. Specifically, for the Echelon program...the FISA Law was actually followed. For every person who's information was gathered, a FISA warrant was obtained. Link.

 

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

 

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

So, why wasn't it a big deal then?  Why didn't the media jump on on that with both feet like they are now?  Where was liberal voice when Clinton was trashing the Constitution?

I have no idea. As some liberals.

[Balta1701]

I have no idea.  As some liberals.

See previous post.

[NorthSideSox72]

See previous post.

 

I saw it after I posted.

 

And while echelon is different, I still think it was sketchy. But I must admit, i don't recall a lot about it.

[Cknolls]

For s***s and giggles. Does anyone have any specific examples of NSA spying on Americans inside of the country. Or hasn't that been leaked yet. It seems were taking the word of the unbiased NYT with no evidence of specifics. Help me out here.

[Balta1701]

For s***s and giggles. Does anyone have any specific examples of NSA spying on Americans inside of the country. Or hasn't that been leaked yet. It seems were taking the word of the unbiased NYT with no evidence of specifics. Help me out here.

There are plenty of examples of the NSA Spying on Americans inside the country...but using FISA warrants. No examples have been leaked yet of the NSA using Bush's program allowing for spying without FISA warrants, although there have been rumors that NBC and other networks have been looking into possible spying on Journalists (i.e. Christianne Amanpour). Aside from that, we don't have a clue who it's been directed at.

[Cknolls]

There are plenty of examples of the NSA Spying on Americans inside the country...but using FISA warrants.  No examples have been leaked yet of the NSA using Bush's program allowing for spying without FISA warrants, although there have been rumors that NBC and other networks have been looking into possible spying on Journalists (i.e. Christianne Amanpour).  Aside from that, we don't have a clue who it's been directed at.

 

Is she based in the USA?

[kapkomet]

Are you serious?  ALL telephone communications are regulated by the FCC, leaving you no other options, and all communications could be monitored by surveillance equipment.  There is no choice there.  Taking the subway, on the other hand, is an actual choice.  You could take a bus, or a surface train, a car, a cab, walk, bike... and not get searched!

 

Listening in on your communications of any kind without a warrant is no different than someone searching your belongings without one.

This has probably already been said, but having a phone is a CHOICE too.

[NorthSideSox72]

This has probably already been said, but having a phone is a CHOICE too.

 

Correct. But if you are under surveillance, that could be any mode of communication, including in-person. See my previous posts. If this was JUST email, while I would still think it was wrong, it would be les scary (for the aforementioned reason of choice). But as these are warrantless, unregulated surveillance operations, it could literally be monitoring anything. And that makes it that much scarier.

[WCSox]

Correct.  But if you are under surveillance, that could be any mode of communication, including in-person.  See my previous posts. If this was JUST email, while I would still think it was wrong, it would be les scary (for the aforementioned reason of choice). But as these are warrantless, unregulated surveillance operations, it could literally be monitoring anything. And that makes it that much scarier.

 

So why is e-mail screening less "scary" than phone screens?

 

It would be very unethical to wire-tap somebody's property (home, vehicle, etc.) without a warrant. But, IMO, all others could be construed as fair game. Internet and phone networks aren't the property of the user.

[NorthSideSox72]

It would be very unethical to wire-tap somebody's property (home, vehicle, etc.) without a warrant.  But, IMO, all others could be construed as fair game.  Internet and phone networks aren't the property of the user.

 

A conversation between two private parties over a phone line is the property of the conversants solely (unless someone over hears one end of it in public). That's why you can't wire tap someone else's phone (but you can tap your own). Same with email, unless it's on a company email account (then it belongs to the company). Unless the company carrying the signal (ISP, telecom) were to specify in their contract that they could use the data being transmitted, they can't own it either.

 

Therefore, the conversants have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the law (meaning, it can only be monitored via warrant).

[WCSox]

A conversation between two private parties over a phone line is the property of the conversants solely (unless someone over hears one end of it in public).  That's why you can't wire tap someone else's phone (but you can tap your own).  Same with email, unless it's on a company email account (then it belongs to the company).  Unless the company carrying the signal (ISP, telecom) were to specify in their contract that they could use the data being transmitted, they can't own it either.

 

Therefore, the conversants have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the law (meaning, it can only be monitored via warrant).

 

I'm aware of what the law says. But if, God forbid, a few thousand people die in another terrorist attack, that might change. Given that privacy in e-mail and cell phone communications aren't specifically protected in the Constitution, a strong case could be made for a change. Hopefully it'll never come to that.

Edited January 6, 2006 by WCSox

[southsider2k5]

I'm aware of what the law says.  But if, God forbid, a few thousand people die in another terrorist attack, that might change.  Given that privacy in e-mail and cell phone communications aren't specifically protected in the Constitution, a strong case could be made for a change.  Hopefully it'll never come to that.

 

"Specifically mentioned"??? Are you kidding me? Do you realize how much things have changed in 200 years technology wise? Things like Air Force aren't specifically mentioned either, only armies, should we get rid of the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines too... because well they aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution?

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm aware of what the law says.  But if, God forbid, a few thousand people die in another terrorist attack, that might change.  Given that privacy in e-mail and cell phone communications aren't specifically protected in the Constitution, a strong case could be made for a change.  Hopefully it'll never come to that.

 

That's one of the many beauties of the Constitution and it's judicial interperetation. Personal communications not in public are protected, and it doesn't matter what the vehicle is. And even if a few more thousand do die in another attack, I would not be ready to give up that right wholesale (nor would most Americans, I think you'd find).