Sunday, December 18, 2005

The Washington Monthly - On the prez signing an order allowing the NSA to spy on US citizens without a warrant. I just wanted to echo what Shakespearer's Sister said about the report that Bush signed an order allowing the NSA to spy on US citizens without a warrant. This is against the law. I have put references to the relevant statute below the fold; the brief version is: the law forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally. Bush's order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [...] According to the Times, "the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States." But this is just wrong. As I noted above, the law specifically allows for warrantless surveillance in emergencies, when the government needs to start surveillance before it can get a warrant. It explains exactly what the government needs to do under those circumstances. It therefore provides the flexibility the administration claims it needed. They had no need to go around the law. They could easily have obeyed it. They just didn't want to. 11:41:58 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Jack Cafferty on the administration: Just Do it! - Jack spelled out all the abuses that have been conducted by this administration since it took over office in about one minute. Jack Cafferty on the administration: Just Do it! Jack Cafferty on the administration: Just Do it! Jack spelled out all the abuses that have been conducted by this administration since it took over office in about one minute. Video-WMP Video-QT Cafferty: Who cares if the Patriot Act get's renewed. Want to abuse our civil liberties-Just do it! Who cares about the Geneva conventions? Want to torture prisoners-Just do it! Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA gents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it! Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMD's is accurate. You want to invade Iraq? Just do it. Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it. And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it.... What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke Hat tip ReddHedd: Sometimes even a curmudgeon hits one out of the park. [Crooks and Liars] 11:11:49 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Can State Ignore Its E-Vote Law? Can State Ignore Its E-Vote Law? Election officials in North Carolina face a lawsuit for allegedly violating a much-lauded state law designed to protect the integrity of elections and electronic voting machines. By Kim Zetter. [Wired News] 10:40:22 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Report: Bush OK'd Spying in U.S. Report: Bush OK'd Spying in U.S. Administration officials react quickly to a report that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on people inside the United States, a violation of federal law. The president respects the Constitution, they say. But they don't deny the report. [Wired News] 10:35:57 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

The Gripe Line Weblog by Ed Foster - Chase Gets Excited About Making Customers Opt Out Again When you go to the trouble of opting out from receiving a company's marketing stuff, you'd think it at least ought to stick for a while. That's why one reader was irked recently when he discovered that Chase was going to make him opt out yet again if he didn't want to get junk mail from them. "A few months back I got a letter from my mortgage company, Chase Home Finance," the reader wrote. "I had previously filled out all the paperwork they sent me to tell them that I wanted to opt out of receiving all marketing material. So, I should not have received any marketing material, right? Wrong!" [...] Unfortunately, there actually are no rules to keep a big bank like Chase from making him opt out again and again, any old time they decide they're "very excited" about bombarding him with the same kind of offers he they didn't want before. And let's not forget about the CardSystems fiasco, where -- at just about the same time Chase was sending out these letters -- it made it crystal clear that it's much less excited about the idea of communicating with customers if it's about the possibility that your credit card information has been stolen by identity thieves. So unexcited, in fact, that Chase instead devoted its energies to arguing for the right to keep its customers in the dark. I guess when it comes to the privacy rights of customers, Chase believes that the bank is the only one that has the right to really opt out. 10:04:28 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Hold the Photons! Commentary by Bruce Schneier. Hold the Photons! A research breakthrough duplicates the security benefits of quantum cryptography using conventional electronics and copper wires. Making it practical is another matter. Commentary by Bruce Schneier. [Wired News: Security Blanket] 9:58:15 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior: 12/ 17/ 2005 NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book." Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program. The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said. The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further. "I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it." 9:49:07 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Little Red Book Draws Government Attention. Little Red Book Draws Government Attention. narcolepticjim writes "An unnamed Dartmouth student was visited by Homeland Security for requesting a copy of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book for a class project." From the article: "The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 9:40:48 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Defense Tech: Wiretaps' Fishy Rationale It's no surprise that the President defended the NSA's domestic eavesdropping this morning; the guy backs every decision he makes, to the death. And it's no surprise to learn that the President had "reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so," according to the AP. 9:38:15 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Emergent Chaos: Government Secrecy and Wiretaps The second half of the President's key sentence is: "and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." That is also not so. Anyone fighting the United States will study our operational methods, and be aware of the Echelon system. They will be fully aware that we can listen to every phone call they make. There are claims that Bamford's revelation that we listened to bin Laden talking on his satellite phone caused operational changes in al Qaeda in the mid-1990s. It is possible that stories such as these call attention to the fact that we're listening, and cause a temporary uptick in the quality of al Qaeda tradecraft and operational security practices. If that is so, then the correct response would be to follow the law in wiretapping, because the government already has the authority to do it anywhere it has any reasonable reason to want to. If the law had been obeyed, there would be no news. The real core of this story is that the President is fond of his power to act unfettered, to use his vast power as he sees fit. Power really does tend to corrupt. The power to listen to anyone, anywhere is not enough. What the President is arguing for is that his powers to do so should be un-restrained and un-reviewed. That the trifecta of Executive, Legislative and Judicial is quaint, and that we should trust him to prosecute the war on terror without limits. I wish his administration would behave such that we could be comfortable with such trust. It has not, and their response to our questions further erodes such trust. 9:29:57 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Secondary Screening: It's Not The Crime; It's the Rationale President Bush admitted today that he circumvented United States law and repeatedly ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap suspected Al Qaeda operatives in the United States. His rationale for the order was that the wiretaps needed to be installed instantly, and he said that the New York Times story that revealed his illegal order damaged national security. The wiretaps themselves should not be in question. No one, besides Ramsey Clark and his ANSWER minions, would argue that phone numbers and email addresses found on the computer of a captured Al Qaeda member should not be wiretapped. Immediately. In fact, that's what the law allows. The government has the power to start such wiretaps immediately, so long as they promptly notify a special court judge and send paperwork to that court with 3 days. All they need to prove is probable cause that the person, whether they be a foreigner or an American citizen, is likely a member of a terrorist group or a foreign agent. That court is highly deferential, and just last year, authorized more than 1,700 wiretaps. That's why this story is not about the wiretaps, so long as one presumes the administration is working in good faith and not using the wiretaps to monitor American citizens exercising their legal rights. Despite this week's story about the Pentagon monitoring anti-war Quakers, I'm still inclined to believe that the targets are legitimate. The story is about executive privilege and this administration's belief that its anti-terrorism actions cannot not be curtailed by Congress or the Courts. Bush is at best misleading the country and at worst, lying, when he argued today that this story undermines national security. Every gunrunner, would-be terrorist, two-dinar dictator and money launderer knows that the NSA has awesome capabilities and that their emails and phones can and will be tapped. As Julian Sanchez points out today, no terrorist could possibly care how the wiretap was ordered: So what kind of plausible difference to our national security could it make if terror suspects who know they might be targeted for eavesdropping with a warrant learn they might be targeted without one? Bush ordered the wiretaps in violation of the wiretap laws, which explicitly say that any wiretapping in the United States must go through the courts, whether those be traditional criminal wiretaps or the ones designed for spies and terrorists. His rationale is that he has the power to ignore and supersede the law by fiat, since Congress authorized the use of force against those who committed or abetted the September 11 bombings. Bush says that the policy is reviewed by Justice Department and NSA lawyers and officials. That may be true, but that's not what the law says should happen. Those are just rules his administration made up. In fact, under this interpretation of his power -- unlimited, unreviewable power in regards to fighting terrorism --, the McCain amendment prohibiting torture has no meaning. Bush would be above that law. In fact, under this conception of the presidency, there's no need to renew the Patriot Act for terrorism investigations, since he can just issue the regulations himself. 9:23:54 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []