More About Spying on Chatrooms

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2004
4,092
452
48
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."
 
Adam's Apple said:
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..........

High time they did!!! Anyone been in a Yahoo chatroom lately?? Sometimes I thought I was arguing with Osama himself!!!!
 
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
 
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
 
manu1959 said:
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

LOL - exactly what I was thinking. If it's so secret, then why do we know about it?
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
why? you got something to hide? oh, wait...you're a commie, so I guess you should be worried.


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.
 
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.
 
sagegirl said:
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.

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.
 
nakedemperor said:
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

Looks like the lefties are start to crack. they think Ashcroft is in their computer. I think he has better things to do as he is leave public service and all. This parania is getting out of control.

Why is this an issue anyway? The internet is a public forum. Since when are public officials not allowed to view whats going on in a public forum? Besides which, from what ive read the patriot act is subject to judicial oversight. I have yet to see anyone who can claim their rights have been violated. If you guys are going to whine about it atleast try to back up what your complaining about.
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
why? you got something to hide? oh, wait...you're a commie, so I guess you should be worried.

:rotflmao:
:rotflmao:
:rotflmao:

Actually, NE, I believe the topic-starter's article noted that the spying was for those already suspected of being terrorists. :arabia: :arabia: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: You sound kinda guilty....:D
 
sagegirl said:
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.
John Gotti, Jimmy Hoffa, and others who have been apprehended and convicted thanks to surveillance by the law would be in agreement with you 100%. The people who are affected by this legislation are persons who are suspected of being involved with terrorist activities. The fact is that the Patriot Act restored a lot of the powers that were in place before Clinton enacted the Torricelli Doctrine, which erected a wall between domestic law enforcement and our intelligence. Because of the Torricelli Doctrine, law enforcement was not able to alert our intelligence of the activities of Al Queda operatives in our own country and our intelligence could not supply domestic law enforcement with the information they needed to apprehend suspected terrorists here at home. As a result, the events of 9/11 were possible. I suppose that you haven’t read the text of the Patriot Act … but law enforcement can’t just start eavesdropping on a suspected terrorist just because they feel like it. Law enforcement has to get a judge’s approval before doing so. That means that the judge has to be convinced that a person is very likely doing something that threatens the security of the United States. In addition, all eavesdropping activities are subject to review several times a year. At each review, evidence must be supplied to justify continued eavesdropping. And as you probably don’t know, the Patriot Act has a sunset provision, which means that, unless Congress votes to extend its expiration date, the Patriot Act becomes null and void.

Now…. Knowing that, tell me…. If the government really wanted to throw you in jail just because you disagree with them, how come they haven’t done so? Why would the evil government have put in so many checks and balances to ensure that the rights of those suspected of being terrorists are nonetheless protected? And why on Earth would they have put an expiration date on such a piece of legislation?

Because …. The Patriot Act isn’t as bad a thing as you make it out to be. And for your information, almost every member of Congress voted for the Patriot Act. Perhaps it is because of the Patriot Act, that you are alive to complain about it. Perhaps, because of the Patriot Act, a terrorist attack in your hometown didn’t happen, an attack that could possibly have taken your life. Or perhaps, because of the Patriot Act, law enforcement apprehended people that were planning attacks on places where members of your family work, live or worship. Perhaps, because of the Patriot Act, an attack on a nuclear power plant was thwarted and thus, millions of square miles of the United States isn’t a radioactive wasteland.


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.

Have you ever heard of a thing called "national security"? Some things are classified and cannot be discussed or revealed without compromising national security. Would you, for instance, want the government to announce the exact time and place of an invasion by our troops? Or would you want the working details of our stealth technology published on the Internet? Or perhaps the exact working details of a Hydrogen Bomb?

Translated into everyday terms.... "national security" usually means "protecting peoples' lives". Whenever classified information is compromised, soldiers, sailors and intelligence agents and innocent people usually end up dying. The fact that you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Revealing certain facts could compromise intelligence sources (i.e. people who live in hostile nations that are supplying us with valuable intelligence on what their governments are up to) and result in their execution.

At one time, only the United States had the Bomb, now the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans have the Bomb. How did that happen? It all started because some subversives (i.e. the Rosenbergs) decided to get their hands on classified government material regarding the A-bomb. Do you feel safer now that these other countries have the ability to start a nuclear war?

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.

Have you noticed that Michael Moore, pain in the rectum that he is, has not spent one second behind bars, has not been arrested, and has not been threatened by our government? Yet, Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film director, was brutally murdered in Amsterdam about a month ago because he made a film that exposed the mistreatment of women in Moslem countries. First, he was gunned down, second, his throat was slit, finally his murderers left a six page complaint at the crime scene by securing it to his chest with a dagger. Now, why hasn't Hollywood expressed outrage at this incident? After all, Islamic thugs murdered a film director, one of their own! Why? Because they’re cowards! They know that they can call GWB all sorts of names, accuse him of being the worst thing since Hitler and nothing, absolutely nothing, will happen to them. But if they dare criticize one of those terrorists or expose them in a documentary like “Fahrenheit 9/11”, they would be in danger of being targets of these monsters.

Tell you what, why don’t you be glad that fat bastards like Michael Moore live in a country were the government protects his right to be a pain in the ass, and protects his safety by spying on, eavesdropping on, apprehending and convicting those people who would gladly kill Michael Moore and use his body as a bulletin board.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Looks like the lefties are start to crack. they think Ashcroft is in their computer. I think he has better things to do as he is leave public service and all. This parania is getting out of control.

Why is this an issue anyway? The internet is a public forum. Since when are public officials not allowed to view whats going on in a public forum? Besides which, from what ive read the patriot act is subject to judicial oversight. I have yet to see anyone who can claim their rights have been violated. If you guys are going to whine about it atleast try to back up what your complaining about.

John Ashcroft is in my computer, Rush Limbaugh is sending telepathic messages to me and all neocons... and Rupert Murdoch is brainwashing me with Fox News... yes, Master, I hear and obey... yes, Master, I hear and obey.... yes, Master, I hear and obey...
 
Marx, my damn computer keeps telling me I can't approve of your posts until I have "spread some rep" around. I don't know what that is all about. It's not like I try to approve everything you say and don't approve of others' posts as well. So I will say it here: I APPROVE OF YOUR POST ON THIS ISSUE, and would increase your rep if I could.
 
Well I 'll go on the record for saying I damn near approve of all the shit Karl posts and I HAD to go spread some rep around so I can give him more approving rep!
 
Adam's Apple said:
Marx, my damn computer keeps telling me I can't approve of your posts until I have "spread some rep" around. I don't know what that is all about. It's not like I try to approve everything you say and don't approve of others' posts as well. So I will say it here: I APPROVE OF YOUR POST ON THIS ISSUE, and would increase your rep if I could.
Thank you both very much! :)
 
what about the fact that the internet is a PUBLIC forum. if Ashcroft, or any other government official was coming in here browsing, looking for terrorist-like conversations, or even just for his own fun, and came across NE's commie-language posts, he could get NE looked up in a micor-second. It's not like you can completely remain anonymous on the internet. You ARE traceable.
 

Forum List

Back
Top