Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: WSJ drops a dime on NSA
Herald-Mail Forums > Politics > National Security
Idiot
link


QUOTE
NSA's Domestic Spying Grows
As Agency Sweeps Up Data


Terror Fight Blurs
Line Over Domain;
Tracking Email


By SIOBHAN GORMAN
March 10, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans' privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But the data-sifting effort didn't disappear. The National Security Agency, once confined to foreign surveillance, has been building essentially the same system.

The central role the NSA has come to occupy in domestic intelligence gathering has never been publicly disclosed. But an inquiry reveals that its efforts have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people's communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

...

The NSA's enterprise involves a cluster of powerful intelligence-gathering programs, all of which sparked civil-liberties complaints when they came to light. They include a Federal Bureau of Investigation program to track telecommunications data once known as Carnivore, now called the Digital Collection System, and a U.S. arrangement with the world's main international banking clearinghouse to track money movements.

The effort also ties into data from an ad-hoc collection of so-called "black programs" whose existence is undisclosed, the current and former officials say. Many of the programs in various agencies began years before the 9/11 attacks but have since been given greater reach. Among them, current and former intelligence officials say, is a longstanding Treasury Department program to collect individual financial data including wire transfers and credit-card transactions.

It isn't clear how many of the different kinds of data are combined and analyzed together in one database by the NSA. An intelligence official said the agency's work links to about a dozen antiterror programs in all.

A number of NSA employees have expressed concerns that the agency may be overstepping its authority by veering into domestic surveillance. And the constitutional question of whether the government can examine such a large array of information without violating an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy "has never really been resolved," said Suzanne Spaulding, a national-security lawyer who has worked for both parties on Capitol Hill.

NSA officials say the agency's own investigations remain focused only on foreign threats, but it's increasingly difficult to distinguish between domestic and international communications in a digital era, so they need to sweep up more information.

...

The haul can include records of phone calls, email headers and destinations, data on financial transactions and records of Internet browsing. The system also would collect information about other people, including those in the U.S., who communicated with people in Detroit.



I just thought I'd remind people of this. Maybe when President Obama, or Clinton, takes office a few people who had no problem with it before might start to look at it a little differently.
Udmas
That's probably when it will start p!ssing me off.

laugh.gif
Idiot
I don't remember the Wall Street Journal having a big problem with it before either. rolleyes.gif
Idiot
For the first time in 25 years and only the 5th time since 1825 the House closes its doors.


QUOTE
House to close its doors for spying bill


WASHINGTON - House doors were locked Thursday night as lawmakers prepared for their first closed session in 25 years to debate surveillance legislation.

Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.

The private session was scheduled for nighttime so the House chamber could be swept by security personnel to make sure there were no listening or recording devices.

The last such session in the House was in 1983 on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have taken place in the House since 1825.

Many Democrats initially objected, calling it a political ploy by Republicans to delay the vote. Indeed, it did: House leaders pushed off the scheduled vote until Friday, just before taking a two-week recess. If passed, the bill would have to be approved by the Senate.

President Bush vowed to veto the House Democrats' version of the terrorist surveillance bill, saying it would undermine the nation's security.

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging they violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California.

The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program in order to decide whether the companies acted lawfully. If they did, the lawsuits would be dismissed.

The administration has prevented those documents from being revealed, even to a judge, by invoking the state secrets privilege. That puts the companies in a bind because they cannot use the documents to defend themselves in court.

It wasn't clear what information would be presented in the closed session. Just a fraction of Congress has been allowed to read secret documents underpinning the surveillance program, and those who have arrived at varying conclusions.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, after seeing classified material, said the companies acted on the good-faith belief that the wiretaps they allowed were lawful. Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees were unconvinced after being presented with the same material.

The surveillance law is intended to help in the pursuit of suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States. A temporary law expired Feb. 16 before Congress was able to produce a replacement bill. Bush opposed an extension of the temporary law as a tactic to pressure Congress into accepting the Senate version of the surveillance legislation. The Senate's bill provides retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications companies.

Bush said lawsuits against telecom companies would lead to the disclosure of state secrets. Further, he said lawsuits would undermine the willingness of the private sector to cooperate with the government in trying to track down terrorists.

Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said intelligence is already being lost.

"Each and every day our capabilities are eroding," he said.

Directing his message at the House, Bush said, "They should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk."

Bush predicted the Senate would not pass the House version of the bill, and said even if it did, he would veto it.

At least one Senate Republican said the lawsuits should go forward to determine whether the wiretapping program was illegal. But Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter wants to substitute the government for the phone companies as the defendant in the court cases.

"The president can't have a blank check," Specter said in an interview. "If you close down the courts, there's no check and balance."

He added: "Wiretaps are important for national security. There's no doubt about that. Al-Qaida and terrorism continue to be a major threat to this country. It is my hope that the president will not find it necessary to veto the bill, that we'll be able to work it out."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Bush is misrepresenting the House bill, and suggested the fight is less about surveillance powers than it is that House Democrats are refusing to bend to Bush's wishes.

"Congress owes the American people more than blind obeisance to the executive branch," said Hoyer, D-Md.



Telcom companies don't need immunity, they're already protected. They did what the president asked them to do. It's the Bush administration that wants immunity from prosecution. If they say there's nothing wrong with what the telcom companies did, then how can it be wrong to tell them to do it? Even the Dems aren't that stupid.

Are they? unsure.gif
Idiot
House: No Telecom immunity.


QUOTE
Rare Closed Session Changes Few Minds On FISA

By Daniel W. Reilly

Mar 14, 2008

(The Politico) A rare closed session of the House to discuss electronic surveillance legislation failed to change many minds Thursday night, as many lawmakers emerged from the closed-door meeting entrenched in their positions on the controversial measure.

While House Republicans — who called for the session to discuss classified information related to the program — said the meeting provided a clear picture of the terrorist threat and the need to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies, many Democrats said they did not hear anything new.

“I did not hear any new information tonight that dissuades me from my very strong belief that the FISA bill House Democrats have produced ... is a reasonable, thoughtful, appropriate piece of legislation that will ensure that the intelligence community has all the tools it needs to protect our nation," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

Congress has been deadlocked for weeks over an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Last month, the Senate passed its own version of the bill, which includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that aided the government after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

House Democratic leaders introduced a bill earlier this week without immunity, angering Republicans who have been calling for the House to take up the Senate bill. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called for the secret session in the hope of persuading his colleagues to support immunity and the Senate bill.

The House is expected to vote on its version early Friday afternoon.



Here is the vote. I was disappointed that Congressman Bartlett voted against the bill.
BMIC
I've had problems with it all along for exactly that reason. But when it comes down to it Americans have certain rights, and it shouldn't matter who is in power. And no I am not REALLY a closet Libertarian. Just sounds that way sometimes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.