Re: NSA wiretap, Friday night

imhotep wrote:

responder wrote:

imhotep wrote:

Barton L. Phillips wrote:

imhotep wrote:
Barton L. Phillips wrote:

responder wrote:
Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
that there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal
and unconstitutional and yet continues.

Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
that all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass
through US hubs
*might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That
includes all commercial, personal or political communications.
That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If
that is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they
ever
done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
people in all the world?

They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of
the country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight.
That is why this kind of activity should and previously did need a
warrant. Their approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you
but then I would have to kill you". Well they are killing us.



...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about
helping business get better bandwidth???

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Imhotep
Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread?
What am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was
this supposed to go with that thread?


They are related as there is a covert attempt here in the US to monitor
and thus control the Internet. In some ways it is also linked to the
illegal (in my opinion anyway) wiretapping that is also going on. Also,
it was revealed that AT&T had been examining email for the US Gov about
6 months ago. Also without a warrent. Then look at the fight Google had
when the US Gov wanted the searches from 1 Million people. And it was
revealed that Yahoo had been doing it for sometime. I ask you, why
would you ask for 1 million random people?

If you look at the big picture here in the US there is a broad and far
reaching attempt to remove the anonymity of people on the Internet...as
well as monitor them...

Imhotep

it is far more board than one first thinks.


As OP in this thread, I think you have gone off topic.

I agree with your net-neutral ideas. Many (who I know) do not. Your
off-topic comments in this thread do not advance any meaningful
discussion of the subject at hand. They actually detract from the focus
of the discussion.

Not to be unkind or mean in any way. But: If you cannot talk to the
subject at hand, then don't write at all.

...Hope to hear from you in a different thread soon. :)


Again, I did not mean to derail your discussion. However, I do see a
connection (Illegal Wiretaps and Anti Net Neutrality). My point was to
*add* to your discussion not *subtract* from it...If you think I was
subtracting from it, then I apologize. It was not my intent...

Imhotep

I guess we are in sync after all. And especially with the benefit of
comments from the other gentlemen, I am starting to see the larger
connections. Thank you (all) for taking the time to explain this so
kindly.

The unsupervised (warrantless) access to private communications has
immense negative repercussions, and little or no positive benefits that
have been shown or can be expected. And there are certainly simpler and
more obvious steps that could enhance collective security, without
trashing our entire system of constitutionally guaranteed rights. (Though
some might disagree, providing civil legal mechanisms to counter the
growth of botnets, without expecting ISP's to be enforcers, would help a
lot, IMO.) There are many possible examples that could be put forward if
any in the extant power structure were in a position to act and wanted to
listen. If the US had had any kind of energy policy other than to make
the oil companies richer and richer, we would now also be in a far less
vulnerable position. In a large sense, these are all connected because
they are the result of the intentional mismanagement of our government by
this administration.

At least three courts have recently found against this administration's
policies. (There was a ruling against so-called "Military Tribunals" for
"enemy combatants". There was a ruling in San Francisco, based in part on
the President's own public statements against invocation of "State
Secrets" in the EFF lawsuit v. NSA and AT&T. There was a ruling in
Detroit that flatly declared the program illegal and unconstitutional.)
Yet the program continues under a stay until appeals are exhausted. And
the administration has chosen the slowest and most lengthly route of
appeal, obviously because they do not want expedited judicial review.
That last point is exactly the center of objection to the entire (what we
know) NSA wiretap issue.

To wit: The administration had legal tools and mechanisms available to do
all these things legally and constitutionally, but chose to not do them in
a legal, constitutionally correct way. If they felt they needed
additional legal leeway, they were free to request additional statutory
authorization from their own, Republican controlled Congress, but chose to
not do that. Now that they have been judged to be acting in violation of
law and of the Constitution, they have chosen the slowest, longest route
to eventual consideration by the US Supreme Court. That is because they
do not want judicial or any other review so long as they can maintain the
status quo.

The FISA supervision, which is secret and apparently very permissive, was
written into law to address wiretap abuses by a previous US Presidential
administration. Those abuses included wiretapping for political purposes
and for monitoring "enemies" such as nonviolent political dissenters.
That was the purpose of the FISA statute and secret court that this
administration chose to ignore, and that this President then chose to
publicly lie about.

If you do a few traceroutes from or to almost anywhere in the US, your
results will vary, of course. But chances are you will see many nodes
that belong to AT&T, and are clearly named as such. Any one of those can
split a signal and send it to NSA. That is exactly what is alleged in the
EFF suit in SF v. AT&T and NSA that Judge Walker ruled can proceed,
ruling against the administration's argument of State Secrets. Judge
Walker will be hearing consolidated cases from across the US.

This is difficult to follow, and I might not have this right, but Judge
Taylor in Detroit made the ruling and ordered a halt to the NSA wiretap
program. The order was stayed pending appeal. And the article linked
reports that the administration has again made the State Secrets argument
that appears to me to be the same one initially rejected both by her and
by Judge Walker in SF. Perhaps it is not identical (?). Also another
"overly broad" argument. The papers were filed Friday before a holiday
weekend. That is the time this administration releases news that they do
not want seen.

There are oral arguments scheduled on the appeal on Thursday, September 7,
and I am not sure if that is in front of Judge Taylor or another. That is
in the ACLU suit, and their site may have more information (aclu.org), or
search Google News.

There is no reasonable expectation of information security possible in
this picture. There is no reasonable basis on which to base any trust in
the integrity of this administration or this President. There is every
reason to suspect that the NSA wiretap program was intended and conceived
from the start as an extra-legal (illegal) operation and remains so today
with the full knowledge and support of the President. There is every
reason to expect that this President and this administration will stop at
nothing to maintain and expand their power. The interests of the citizens
and of the country are of no concern to these people.

Thanks again for writing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Judge Calls Bush Admin Wiretapping Arguments "Gobbledygook"
    ... You thought Colbert was tough on the administration? ... Get a load of this guy, sitting on an appeals court: ... wiretap Internet phone calls. ... A judge said the government's courtroom ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • OT: Why Dubya Broke The Law
    ... Secret court modified wiretap requests ... Government records show that the administration was encountering ... unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Bush Must Release Global Warming Reports
    ... SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge ordered the Bush administration to ... U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush ... research plan, which is meant to guide federal research on climate change. ... The judge set a May 31 deadline to produce a national assessment containing ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Judge: Wiretap program unconstitutional
    ... Grey Satterfield wrote: ... The judge, Anna ... October the result may be less acceptable to the this Administration ... Warrantless domestic eavesdropping violates the Constitution, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Judge: Wiretap program unconstitutional
    ... DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's ... U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge ... but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. ... Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information ...
    (sci.military.naval)