Re: Here's how to get on the NSA's radar screen

[Matthew Murphy <mattmurphy () kc rr com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Dave Killion wrote:
> Well, not just that, but the NSA is forbidden from collecting on US
> nationals without a court order.  I know there's been talk in the press
> about the presidential order loosening those restrictions, but I know for a
> fact it wasn't carte blanche.  USSID 18 is still very much in effect.

Perhaps not for the case of general-purpose filtering, as Richard
incorrectly suggests is taking place.  I do agree that an American
government blindly filtering through data on its own citizens without
any reasonable suspicion what-so-ever would be a huge no-no.

However, in the case of the specific wiretap order issued by Bush (if
what I'm hearing reported in the media is accurate -- a leap of faith to
be sure), it seems only 500 taps were authorized.  It hasn't been very
clear as to whether this is tapping up to 500 people who happen to be
communicating simultaneously, or 500 specific individuals.

Further, I'm not familiar with what specifically you mean by "U.S.
National".  Does that include people who are, say, in the U.S. illegally
and known-to-be-so, that, for whatever reason, we can tap, but have yet
to actually arrest?  It seems feasible to me, especially in the case of
e-mail, that some or all of the subjects tapped could be illegals
suspected of terrorist ties.  That would make sense, even in this context.

If these individuals are, as the President asserts, "suspected
terrorists", then the President's assertion that these are, essentially,
foreign intelligence taps necessitated by "wartime conditions" has at
least some (shaky) legal ground.

I personally find the President's rhetoric that we are at war to be
true, but with far more limits than the President asserts.  I define
Iraq and Afghanistan to be the limits of the battlefield.  Calling the
"war on terrorism" a war is silly -- terrorists operate in a fashion
more typical of organized crime than an actual military faction.  If the
"war on drugs" was a war, my school would be a battlefield, and if the
"war on poverty" was a war, the guns should be firing in every American
city.  But that isn't happening, because you don't wage wars on
concepts, material objects, ideals, social ills or even nations, you
wage wars against people.

> Having used the system for 2 years, and having once - by pure accident -
> adding a US nationals emails to a request (which was pre-reviewed, detected
> and removed = never actually processed) and then living through the
> nightmare of almost going to jail for it...  No human would ever read the
> email you sent these addresses if sent from a US TLD.
>
> Trust me, the hype on this has always been out of control compared to the
> reality.  And yes, this is an evasion technique, and one that both sides of
> the issue are well aware of (which is why, among other reasons, that most of
> these are US TLD anonymous accounts).

And I wouldn't put it past the President to reduce or eliminate those
restrictions in a quiet fashion for *specific individuals* that are
Presidential enem.. er, suspected terrorists.

Regardless of the details of the actual tapping (which may be
warranted), Bush's assertion that he can do it legally without court
order (which is blatantly false) bothers me.  I don't trust the son of a
bitch.  And the law is the way it is, because I shouldn't have to.  That
is the precise point of judicial review -- not openness, but
reasonability and accountability of the executive to a power other than
itself.

Frankly, if these are, as the President asserts, suspected terrorists
that are being tapped, he should have no problem with going to FISA and
securing an order for a tap.  Even in the event that these taps had a
time-critical element, their length gave the President more than enough
time to seek FISA approval.  There can be only two reasons why he did not:

1) Even FISA would've denied or modified the wiretap requests, because
the President had little basis for them.

2) Bush is trying to use a case that clearly would've been permitted by
FISA as a way to illustrate that he can "exercise his legal authority
responsibly" without FISA's help.  IOW, he's setting a precedent for the
invocation of Article II anytime a President feels he/she can act
responsibly and can't be bothered by actually going through the
legally-established framework for the purpose proposed.

In this case, it was suspected terrorists, but if the President can
assert warrantless authority based on Article II, you're essentially
living in an 18th-century British colony.  It's only a few years away if
Bush or his neo-con cronies retain a grip on power.  There will be
people who will criticize me, but I'm very aware of the precise reason
that there are checks on executive power.  It's because governments and
people both abuse power if they aren't checked.  Elections are the check
of the populous on government and the branches of government are a check
on the people within it.  God forbid Bush's obsession with executive
power becomes a _legal norm_ for any reason, because it will deal a
serious blow to governmental accountability and our freedoms,
well-intentioned *or not*.

Maybe I'm the only one who gives a damn about my civil rights.

- --
"Social Darwinism: Try to make something idiot-proof,
nature will provide you with a better idiot."

                                -- Michael Holstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDxaAYfp4vUrVETTgRAzYLAJ9H+Yq14NSXvjYBZPeDVDNj5oBAgQCbBa3Z
M/yuYe3+MqJGZMEU/NLszsk=
=JVSJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.