Re: Transcript: Debate on the foreign intelligence surveillance act

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 8/23/07, rms () computerbytesman com <rms () computerbytesman com> wrote:
> http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_6685679?source=most_viewed
>
> Transcript: Debate on the foreign intelligence surveillance act
> By Chris Roberts / (c)El Paso Times
> Article Launched:08/22/2007 01:05:57 AM MDT


With the exception of the quote you pulled, when read out of context,
it reads fairly reasonable. Some more for those who never follow links
in e-mail:


Q: Can't you get the warrant after the fact?

A: The issue is volume and time. Think about foreign intelligence.
What it presented me with an opportunity is to make the case for
something current, but what I was really also trying to put a strong
emphasis on is the need to do foreign intelligence in any context. My
argument was that the intelligence community should not be restricted
when we are conducting foreign surveillance against a foreigner in a
foreign country, just by dint of the fact that it happened to touch a
wire. We haven't done that in wireless for years.

Q: So you end up with people tied up doing paperwork?

A: It takes about 200 man hours to do one telephone number. Think
about it from the judges standpoint. Well, is this foreign
intelligence? Well how do you know it's foreign intelligence? Well
what does Abdul calling Mohammed mean, and how do I interpret that?
So, it's a very complex process, so now, I've got people speaking Urdu
and Farsi and, you know, whatever, Arabic, pull them off the line have
them go through this process to justify what it is they know and why
and so on. And now you've got to write it all up and it goes through
the signature process, take it through (the Justice Department), and
take it down to the FISA court. So all that process is about 200 man
hours for one number. We're going backwards, we couldn't keep up. So
the issue was ...

Q: How many calls? Thousands?

A: Don't want to go there. Just think, lots. Too many. Now the second
part of the issue was under the president's program, the terrorist
surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us. Because if
you're going to get access you've got to have a partner and they were
being sued. Now if you play out the suits at the value they're
claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So my position was we have
to provide liability protection to these private sector entities. So
that was part of the request. So we went through that and we argued
it. Some wanted to limit us to terrorism. My argument was, wait a
minute, why would I want to limit it to terrorism. It may be that
terrorists are achieving weapons of mass destruction, the only way I
would know that is if I'm doing foreign intelligence by who might be
providing a weapon of mass destruction.

Q: And this is still all foreign to foreign communication?

A: All foreign to foreign. So, in the final analysis, I was after
three points, no warrant for a foreigner overseas, a foreign
intelligence target located overseas, liability protection for the
private sector and the third point was we must be required to have a
warrant for surveillance against a U.S. person. And when I say U.S.
person I want to make sure you capture what that means. That does not
mean citizen. That means a foreigner, who is here, we still have to
have a warrant because he's here. My view is that that's the right
check and balances and it's the right protection for the country and
lets us still do our mission for protection of the country. And we're
trying to fend off foreign threats.
_______________________________________________
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.