More About Spying on Chatrooms

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Adam's Apple, Nov 29, 2004.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Secret U.S. court OKs electronic spying
    Last modified: November 18, 2002, 10:03 PM PST
    By Declan McCullagh
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com

    WASHINGTON--A secretive federal court on Monday granted police broad authority to monitor Internet use, record keystrokes and employ other surveillance methods against terror and espionage suspects.

    In an unexpected and near-complete victory for law enforcement, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review overturned a lower court's decision and said that Attorney General John Ashcroft's request for new powers was reasonable.

    The 56-page ruling removes procedural barriers for federal agents conducting surveillance under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The law, enacted as part of post-Watergate reforms, permits sweeping electronic surveillance, telephone eavesdropping and surreptitious searches of residences and offices.

    At a press conference Monday afternoon, Ashcroft applauded the ruling, characterizing it as a "victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people."

    Ashcroft said the ruling marks a new era of collaboration between police and intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency.

    "This decision allows law enforcement officials to learn from intelligence officials, and vice versa, as a means of sort of allowing the information to flow from one community to another," Ashcroft said. "This will greatly enhance our ability to put pieces together that different agencies have. I believe this is a giant step forward."

    The lower court, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, had said there must be a well-defined wall separating domestic police agencies from spy agencies. It accused the FBI of submitting incorrect information under oath in more than 75 cases, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis Freeh. (from AA: Read the book The Third Terrorist for examples of false testifying by the FBI.)

    The lower court's decision, written in May, went so far as to say that changes to the Justice Department's procedures were necessary "to protect the privacy of Americans in these highly intrusive surveillances and searches."

    Justice Department lawyers argued that the USA Patriot Act, signed by President George W. Bush last fall, made any such wall obsolete and unnecessary. The Patriot Act also changed the requirements for FISA surveillance, saying that espionage or terrorist acts did not have to be the primary purpose of the investigation but only a "significant purpose."

    The review court agreed with Ashcroft, even suggesting that greater use of FISA surveillance conceivably could have thwarted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It ruled that Ashcroft's proposed procedures, "if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, certainly come close."

    Civil libertarians said they were alarmed by the ruling, the public version of which was censored for security reasons. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the appeals court to uphold the lower court's decision.

    Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said, "Because the FISA now applies to ordinary criminal matters if they are dressed up as national security inquiries, the new rules could open the door to circumvention of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements. The result: rubber-stamp judicial consent to phone and Internet surveillance, even in regular criminal cases, and FBI access to medical, educational and other business records that conceivably relate to foreign intelligence probes."

    FISA authorizes judges on the secret court, which always meets behind closed doors, to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes if "there is probable cause to believe" that a terrorist, spy, or foreign political organization is involved. Police are not required to meet the same legal standards that are required under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and eavesdropping, when conducting surveillance in normal investigations.

    During the 1980s, the Justice Department began interpreting the law as limiting FISA orders to cases in which no criminal prosecution was planned. In 1995, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a wall created between FBI intelligence agents--who have security clearances--and Justice Department prosecutors in FISA investigations.

    But by mid-2001, attitudes inside the Justice Department began to shift in favor of eroding that wall, and Congress virtually eliminated it when enacting the Patriot Act. In March 2002, Ashcroft responded with new "Intelligence Sharing Procedures" that allowed the free exchange of information among the FBI, spy agencies and prosecutors. (God bless John Ashcroft for his wisdom is getting rid of this ridiculous impediment to intelligence sharing. If the "wall" had not been erected between the agencies during the Clinton Administration, would 9/11 have happened?)

    The initial FISA court rejected Ashcroft's procedures as not authorized by the Patriot Act, adopting the 1995 Reno guidelines instead. The review court rejected that analysis Monday, saying that Congress "clearly did not preclude or limit the government's use or proposed use of foreign intelligence information, which included evidence of certain kinds of criminal activity, in a criminal prosecution."
     
  2. TheEnemyWithin
    Online

    TheEnemyWithin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    High time they did!!! Anyone been in a Yahoo chatroom lately?? Sometimes I thought I was arguing with Osama himself!!!!
     
  3. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Get out of my computer, Mr. Ashcroft.

    You can get the crowd of young Turks to sign up for your freedom-reducing acts (why not call it the Apple Pie and Happy Sunshine act?), but leave me out =P
     
  4. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    why? you got something to hide? oh, wait...you're a commie, so I guess you should be worried.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    A secretive federal court on Monday granted police broad authority to monitor Internet use, record keystrokes and employ other surveillance methods against terror and espionage suspects.

    secret my ass
     
  6. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    LOL - exactly what I was thinking. If it's so secret, then why do we know about it?
     
  7. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    I was going to say the same thing...Heck a google search returns 329,000
    SECRET hits!:duh3:
     
  8. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937

    He, like myself enjoys privacy. I pay good money for my internet service, and I should be able to visit any site I want without being questioned. I wouldn't want to be accused of something simply because I'm nosey.
     
  9. sagegirl
    Offline

    sagegirl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    515
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +42
    The idea that someone who wants their privacy protected is hiding something is really simplistic. The idea that we are a free country and entitled to the free expression of our ideas without the threat of the GOVERNMENT considering us unpatriotic or subversive because we disagree with leaders or their policies is threatened by the Patriot Act. What a misnomer. I guess they figure if they feed us s*** long enough, we"ll acquire a taste for it.

    Furthermore, the idea of the need for secrecy is best practiced by our own government. Secret documents, if they are released are full of blacked out sections, sometimes to the extent that the subject is totally obscured. The Freedom of Information Act, truly a patriot act, is sidestepped and so deliberately abused by the government that it is almost impossible to get to the truth. Insiders shred documents, lie to congress, refuse to answer direct questioning by oversight committees and protect the powers that be, (Oliver North, Condisleeza Rice, ) and we call them great Americans.

    Be glad that we have some power to protect ourselves from our government, and be sure to exercise them every chance you get. And be sure to always make those in power accountable for their actions and require full disclosure in a timely manner on all issues.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    True enough. But while you view one approach to this situation as simplistic, you take much the same tack with your own view.

    The fact is that government has a need for secrecy in some areas. Technology, military capabilities and deployments, counter-terrorist measures, state department agreements with other nations are all examples. The need for government security and the right of citizens to know what their government is up to are competing interests. Somtimes our "right" to know is actually detrimental to the nation as a whole, because if we know it, so do our enemies. At other times, government may seek to prevent information from getting out to cover up incompetence or corruption.

    So it's a balancing act. Neither view is always correct.
     

Share This Page