NSA Abused Wiretap Rights: Intercepted, Shared Private Calls Of Americans
from the funny-how-that-works dept
Now that Congress has totally capitulated and allowed the administration's warrantless wiretapping program to go on without question, it should surprise no one that leaks are coming out highlighting how the program is regularly abused to spy on everyday Americans who are calling North America from the Middle East. In fact, two separate "intercept operators" have apparently come forward separately, and talked about listening in on perfectly innocent calls between two Americans -- exactly the scenario that the government insisted never happened. Specifically, General Hayden stated that conversations between Americans were not being intercepted: "It's not for the heck of it. We are narrowly focused and drilled on protecting the nation against al Qaeda and those organizations who are affiliated with it."However, according to the operators, it appears to be very much for the heck of it. Not only were calls between Americans listened to and recorded on a regular basis, the "good parts" (i.e., phone sex) were sent around to other operators to listen to as well. One of the operators said that on a regular basis messages would be sent around with messages like: "Hey, check this out. There's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out." Of course, this shouldn't surprise anyone. When you give someone the power to spy on calls with absolutely no oversight, it's going to get abused. It's just that simple.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abuse, cia, middle east, nsa, phone sex, wiretaps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hire me I speak Arabic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That everyone can sit and shout at virtual forums makes them less likely to ACTUALLY do something about any REAL situation.
The Internet(s); the greatest invention and the greatest pacifier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Internet has actually enabled action of the people like never before; there are fewer and fewer groups that are left out of the loop, leaks of information like this one are harder if not impossible to control thanks to the Internet.
Imagine if this sort of thing happened in the pre-Internet era? The news report would have very likely been suppressed and no one would have ever known.
It really seems that you're just projecting; I'm willing to bet anything that YOU are one of those people who rages and then does nothing, using the excuse that "no one else bothers either" to give yourself the OK for being a non-participant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The clearly form response letter I got back didn't address my complaint. t said, basically 'don't worry they promised not to spy on american citizens' Paraphrased because it was about page and a half long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eh.
For starters, I don't doubt the basic idea of what the two former service members are saying. I do seriously doubt that this represents an actual threat to our civil rights. We all wring our hands at the evil government tapping the phones...Much more serious problems are out there (outlawing words and gestures unattached to actions, or assigning identical actions towards different people differing levels of severity), but we usually think those sound like good ideas. And I wonder if these service members actually read the non-disclosure agreement they signed upon leaving the military.
The best thing this article does is represent the desire of news outlets to be the first to report on something.
And just for fun:
[from the article]
NSA awarded Adrienne Kinne a NSA Joint Service Achievement Medal in 2003...
That's the "hey, we're sorry you don't deserve the Meritorious Service Medal" award. Meaningless. (I know, I have two.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh.
You're right, it's not a threat. A threat is when something menacing is about to happen, or could happen shortly, is impending. In this case, civil rights have already been violated, so technically it's not a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and if you protest....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html
The se people where protesting against the death penalty.
So no wonder that people 'just let it happen....'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rick not seeing forest for the trees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with you on this much – those that were responsible for listening to calls and didn’t properly perform their duties by taking time away from their important job to do what was alleged in the story should be summarily fired. Our nation’s security does not need people that will abuse their power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is being paranoid, here?
The guys that are concerned that the government is breaking the Fourth Amendment, with ample evidence, or the guy shrieking about how the terrorists are on the way so we should just give up on the Bill of Rights, with no evidence at all?
You sir, deserve neither liberty nor security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And for that we should give up the civil liberties that make this country what it is?
Sorry. I'm not willing to do that. If you want the principles that make America great, that's your problem. Those of us who respect what America stands for would like to keep our civil liberties in place.
If you honestly believe that listening to calls of innocent people is the way to protect this country, you should get out more. The focus should be on getting BETTER data, not more data.
When Iran develops its nuclear weapon and delivers it to Hezbollah and detonates it in a major city will you still maintain that your privacy was worth it?
You make it sound as if we NEED to give up privacy to stop such an attack. That's a fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also: "and it will come." and "When Iran develops its nuclear weapon"? Really?
You're just spouting Bush Doctrine fear mongering talking points. You and everyone else who has dragged us into this War On A Noun are the TRUE terrorists. Your chorus of fear and the regret we will feel if we don't submit our freedom to the great protectors in the government are the true voices of oppression and destruction of our great nation.
If you were a true patriot of this country and had a proper understanding of its history, you'd know that privacy and freedom are two sides of the same coin, and you cannot take away privacy without taking away freedom.
And if we're going to burn our freedom to protect it from the terrorists then what are we fighting for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve niether and will lose both
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought this was neocon at first! LOL
Bush has already murdered more civilians than Bin Laden. Can I listen in on his phone calls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our nation’s security does not need people that will abuse their power."
You just described this whole administration. About the only non-BS you said in your whole post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush should be locked up.
Bush should be locked up.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I stirred up the hornet's nest
And Elohssa, you talk about the 4th Amendment. Are you suggesting that the 4th Amendment applies to EVERYONE? Because it doesn't. Do the terrorists deserve our 4th Amendment rights? Let me remind you that the terrorists never considered the 4th Amendment rights of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg, did they? They didn't consider the 4th Amendment rights of the 3,000 victims on 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I stirred up the hornet's nest
You should try reading it again. Get past the 3rd amendment, and try the 4th.
Oops. There it is!
I ask you Mike, and the others, how have you been hurt; how has your privacy been violated? Have you lost money? Have you been blackmailed or extorted because someone listened to your phone call?
What does that have to do with anything. Will you let everyone here listen in on all your calls, review all your transactions and health records? After all, you will not lose any money. We'll just watch. Promise.
And I will note that you totally skipped over the part about showing how violating people's privacy makes us any safer. It does not. As that study we pointed to earlier this week showed, getting more info actually makes it more difficult to find the right info.
Do the terrorists deserve our 4th Amendment rights? Let me remind you that the terrorists never considered the 4th Amendment rights of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg, did they?
And thus we should do without it? Thus we should give up all our principles and sink as low as those terrorists?
Sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I stirred up the hornet's nest
I think it's pretty clear that the 4th applies to all U.S. citizens. That would include citizens who are terrorists, but this can be bypassed through a court. That's a warrant. They aren't hard to get, but apparently too much bother for the current administration. I'm not even opposed to the old 72 hour rule, where they could begin monitoring immediately as long as they received the warrant within 72 hours. THAT wasn't enough for this administration, because they want to monitor U.S. citizens in the absence of probable cause UNACCEPTABLE.
I think overseas call with one party as a non-U.S. citizen is acceptable. That is the line. Communications between two U.S. citizen (regardless of their physical locations) should be protected by the 4th. Bush is crossing the line, because he is not getting warrants.
I will happily die free, rather than live safe in a fear cage. The Federal Govt. can't protect me or anyone, because they can never operate as efficiently as a small group of dedicated professionals. There have been many public demonstrations detailing the myriad techniques used to smuggle goods, and we have large and porous borders. You correctly mentioned that the Feds are a relatively small group. What kinda of black magic are they using to stop anyone who REALLY wants to from slipping into our country undetected, with just about anything they care to bring?
Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, as sad at there fates were, knew what they were getting into. I imagine the danger was part of the attraction, for them. I take special precautions from getting kidnapped in a foreign country full of religious crazies, myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post 26 was by Hypo (in case you couldn't tell)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No good short-term answer
I don't think W has any disorders or disabilities, what he has is "underachieving party-boy from family with money and power" syndrome. Now that he is on the way out, neither he nor his handlers seem to give to much of a damn about what he says or does. McCain also suffers from this syndrome, and has about the same grasp on almost every aspect of domestic and foreign policy that Bush does. Obama, while more intelligent and much more well-spoken, has never actually DONE anything, his entire career has been about getting his hand on the next rung of the ladder. Both of the VP candidates are laughably bad in different ways as well.
No matter which side wins this election, you can rest assured that this spying program and many other craptastic Bush policies will continue unimpeded. The Democrats will be too busy trying to set up new social entitlements and will need to give the hawks some bones to chew on to keep their mouths shut. The Republicans will continue to expand their Big Brother agenda and claim that every day passing without a bomb going off in the USA is proof that domestic spying works. Business as usual.
Meanwhile, the people who REALLY try to get the nation back on track as a sovereign nation and citizen of the world- such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will get swept under the rug by the vast majority of the public because Joe Six-pack says "gosh darnit, thinking for myself is hard, I'd rather have my opinions spoon fed to me by CNN and Fox News". The knee-jerk reactionary policies that are so bad for the country that the creators have to put cuddly names on them to make the lazy and/or stupid vote for them, such as the PATRIOT Act, PRO-IP, etc. will continue to be written and passed until people demand better from their leaders.
Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypo, you lost me at terrorist.
Terrorist? If you going to you such a intentionally imprecise and extremely subjective characterizations. One cannot consider your flappings anything other then parroted government propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Clueby4
terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Actually, I'm more interested in the word you would use to describe 9/11 and beheadings? Just how would you characterize that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already
We are upfront and it was fought over in congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The linked article says that the Senate wants answers. Bush has an answer for them; "Suck on this!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The second I step out of my home country, I expect nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, Americans expect that their government will obey its own laws and not spy on them just for the hell of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just prior to the Spanish-American War, Gen. Zachary Taylor rode up and down the Rio Grande with his men, deliberately goading the Spanish into attacking first, as his orders specified.
- The sinking of the Lusitania brought the US into WWI, but what isn't widely known is that the ship was deliberately sent without an escort, and along a route where German U-boats were known to be.
- FDR knew in advance of Pearl Harbor and deliberately allowed it to happen. Also, US intelligence at the end of the war knew Japan was ready to surrender even before the A-bomb, but dropped it anyway as a message to Russia.
And so it's gone ever since, including the Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, and 9/11 (which loads of documented evidence proves that the US knew about well in advance but did nothing to stop, because of a desire for a new Pearl Harbor as an excuse to go into Iraq and Afganhistan, thereby to secure the oil supplies there and the pipeline across Afghanistan to India).
www.fromthewilderness.com has all the information and details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice work Americans! It's like burning all your money because you are afraid of getting robbed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike
The surveillance program authorizes the intercept of calls originating OVERSEAS. It is critical that we all understand and agree that calls originating OVERSEAS by a non U.S. citizen is the authorized program. Can you agree to that?
Many on this board seem to think that calls are being listened to between everyday innocent Americans right here at home. That's not the program.
What I will grant you is this - violating a U.S. citizens privacy without a warrant does not make us any safer.
Will you grant that we have the right if not duty to intercept calls originating overseas from non U.S. citizens? Will you support that?
You are further correct when you say that collecting too much data can make it difficult to find the right info. But you must also understand that you will NEVER find the right info if you never collect anything.
You say - Thus we should give up all our principles and sink as low as those terrorists?
Absolutely not! But the terrorists do not deserve the protections our Constitution affords you and I. Do you agree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elohssa
The AUTHORIZED Terrorist Surveillance Program is directed at overseas calls where one party is located overseas.
Is there evidence, beyond some disgruntled linguists, to show that intercepts were conducted domestically and not conducted overseas? The purview of the NSA and its collection efforts are overseas. Domestic intercepts are generally conducted by the FBI and governed by the FISA statute. I am quite certain that intercepts of two US citizens under the FISA laws receive immense amounts of scrutiny and review before being authorized.
And as for those porous borders - we need to start by enforcing the laws we already have rather than waste time debating new laws. You are right, the borders are a significant national security problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TO ALL
This issue is not about them or about politics it is about us as Americans, our security and the security of our children.
I am tired of seeing one party disregard the best interests of our country for political gain. If one party has a good idea the other party will refuse to support it because they don't want the other side to get the credit. We will destroy ourselves if that continues.
We must come together as Americans and put aside the "my team your team" mentality. And it doesn't start in Washington - it starts with YOU! You must be willing to engage in these discussions with open mind and not as a partisan. Be able to question your own beliefs and respect a person who holds a different belief - that's the American way and what can make us so great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TO ALL
How about we start by re-vamping the electoral system to include more candidates? Eliminate the traditional two party system, and allow only 6-8 weeks of campaigning? There are some good altermate candidates out there but the current system is designed to eliminate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget....
He sold us all out after getting the party nomination. Too bad that "Joe Six Pack" has no idea what FISA is and telecom immunity or net neutrality means, but the big picture is that Obama turned around and voted to allow this to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal Wiretapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]