NSA Whistleblower Claims US Journalists Were Regularly Spied On: Everything Collected
from the that-doesn't-seem-legal dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in the news, as revealed by Russell Tice, who was one of the major "whistleblowers" on the NSA's questionable warrantless wiretapping activities, that the NSA was not just (as the gov't has claimed) spying on known terrorist threats, but was spying on journalists on a regular basis. Specifically, they were collecting pretty much everything (emails, phone calls, etc.) on certain journalism organizations. He explains that he was officially put on a project supposedly to "weed out" that info, but that it was a deception so that the NSA had some cover if called on it. Instead, he found that all of the data was being recorded. This seems to be an even bigger breach of the surveillance laws. Now, before some people jump up and down in the comments about protecting us from terrorists -- the point here is that there are perfectly good laws allowing intelligence representatives to tap into communications of potential terrorists. The problem here is that it appears the administration went well beyond that, spied on those who were not at all involved in terrorist activities and did not use the legally prescribed process of obtaining warrants (probably because they never would have been granted).
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: journalists, nsa, russell tice, wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
The fact is, governments change, and everything they do is subject to mission creep and abuse. What today you think nothing of, may tomorrow be used against you by a malicious prosecutor and ruin the rest of your life. In the end, only the Constitution gives you the freedom and safety you enjoy. That's why you should care when it's violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
Also, I guess I shall quote Benjamin Franklin who said it best "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."
The point is that as citizen's of the United States of America we have the duty to make sure our government does not get too big and impede on our freedom. If they do then again, it is our duty to remove them and replace them with a new government that will do their duty of guarding and protecting the Constitution and not raping it and changing laws to limit our power and increase theirs. This is OUR country...they work for US. I'm not banking on big change soon, but real patriots of this country are well armed and waiting to take back our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
The pathetic part is that fools like you endanger all of us.
You served in the military? Congratulations. I was red beret. That doesn't mean that I want to see the US government spying on it's own citizens for no good reason. There are laws against this because it's a generally unsavory thing. Tossing those laws out the window so you can pretend to be safer accomplishes NOTHING.
Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
Anyone who thinks it is ok for the government to spy on its citizens to keep them safe, is so far removed from the ideals that the United States was founded on, that they should have their U.S. Citizenship revoked, or put into a reeducation camp to learn American history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever it takes..
Er, pot, kettle. Seriously, do you not see the inherent hypocrisy in that paragraph?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whatever it takes..
Its not really hypocritical (although I can see how a terse reading could make it appear that way). He is saying that people who act in defense of the united states by destroying its founding principals, do not properly understand them and as such should be denied citizenship until they do. This is really an apeal to "social contract" and "tasset consent". This position is perfectly consistant with the ideals of the US founders (its derived directly from Locke).
I dont necessarily agree, but I do see the consistancy. There is no such consistancy on other side, violating the constituion of the united states is in no way consistant with the ideals of the founders, whether it is done to protect the united states or not. If you want to violate the constitution to protect us citizens then you MUST declare martial law, anything less is simply a violation of the founding principals (since they clearly lay out the martial law doctrine).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever it takes..
Later he said he wrote a letter to the Obama campaign on paper and pencil because he knew the bredth of the program, the fact that computers could be and were tapped, and didn't write a letter on his computer, even in a wordprocessor.
Earlier in the program, Olbermann said in a bump that they spied on Politically non-affiliated tech savvy people. This sounds like Ron Paul Supporters, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."--Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
You would have been right at home in the Societ Union, to bad its gone now. Try China, they seems to be much closer to your cowardly, authoritarian views then Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
If you do not understand the above, seek professional help immediately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
Journalists sources have their anonymity protected for a reason - for their own protection. In a perfect world with perfect government officials that could be 100% trusted, maybe you would be right. But, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need this surveillance in the first place. Your system allows corruption to run rampant. Who is going to stop a corrupt power that had the authority to do anything they want in the name of "safety." Wake up, jackass. This isn't a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
Here's what I say when people ask me that...
"So what time should I come by and watch you and your wife have sex? I mean, you are doing nothing wrong, correct? So why should you care if I watch?"
That usually shuts them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
All that is needed for the terrorists to defeat us, is for us to forget that we are Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
Seriously, I've never seen so many liberty-saftey-neither quotes in a single thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC
ANd make a SMALL mistake, that would be over looked.
And suddenly there are COPS on your door step, arresting you for a petty crime.
OR
if you MISSED that stop light/sign, you totally DIDNT see it.. ANd you get a ticket in the mail, or a cop Pulls you over.
How about those that Use drugs or drink to much AT HOME...NOT bothering anyone, not endangering KIDS or dogs.
KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK!!!
NOW, THINK hard, as I know its difficult for you.
But do you REALLY think that TECH is only for the WHITE MAN/SMART PERSON/person who KNOWS what they are doing.
HOW easy is it to change your ISP location, or FAKE a email location, or any of 10,000 other ways to protect yourself.
And in todays WORLD, it would be easy to setup a spoof site and TELL EVERYONE what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Whatever it takes? NO Dammit!
And to put it in terms you might understand, "That dog don't hunt"
I find it amazing that we made it through the entire cold war with a well funded, well organized enemy that had both the infrastrcture and ability to infiltrate and spy (the USSR) without loosing any of our civil rights. But Oddly, now that the enemy is a "isim" (terrorism) we need to give up all our rights and depend on our government not to abuse us.
Bad news flash, this is yet more evidence of our government abusing the power we gave it, that is, abusing US.
And as to the "effectiveness" of those programs and secret abuses of our rights, I have an "elephant attack preventing rock" in my backyard, it has successfully prevented elephant attacks in my area for more than 100 years.
We wont even bother to talk about the well publicized "busts" of "dangerous plots" made by the DHS of people that were later released without even being charged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever it takes..
It won't just be used for the purposes you think it will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Freeman, Interpol, early '90s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: whatever it takes....
How can you NOT do anything wrong, if you have NO say, input or power over what is defined as right or wrong in the first place?
This is the whole FOUNDATION of western society:
It's the CITIZENS of our countries that have the ultimate say over what should be allowed and what shouldn't - it's what (should) make our countries different from those run by dictators, like Zimbabwe - where it's the ONE person at the top that decides what's right and wrong, and not the general population.
When a small group of people in power choose to start making their own rules, without using the systems in place to change the existing rules if they can be proven to be ineffective, then they are traitors, and should be dealt with as such. There should and can be NO room for error here - if you give them an inch, they WILL take a yard - and everyone will deserve everything they get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read it...re-read it.
We may have gone past that date, but we are still heading down that road.
Be very, very worried anytime the general populace becomes complacent about what the Government (any government) is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The notion of privacy you all expect is rather entertaining.
Only a fool believes their information is "private" when sent out into the world. Nothing is private at that point.
Even you aren't considered private once you leave your home. Facial recognition software is building popularity.
Soon, you'll be recognized in other countries without even having visited it before.
Ah. Technology. Wonderful stuff.
Now shut the hell up, #5972. You're causing anarchy amongst the stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously.
Stop with the petty fights- check to see if what you're arguing about even makes the least bit of sense. Damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing we have Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dog mentality
sounds like the words of a dog that blindly follows its master.
*If* you have ever read history, you would realize that the governments abuse their own people when given the power to do so. It's a slippery slop we don't want to start.
Human nature is to abuse power then given the opportunity. We can't blindly give the government power. It's suppose to serve us. And as a 'military man', you are suppose to serve the constitution, not the president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REALLY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: REALLY?
Truth is every president and administration over steps their bounds at some point or points. This incoming administration will be NO different. Now get over your Bush derangement syndrome and move on. He's out of office. Everything now is officially Obama's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: REALLY?
Who was the homosexual prostitute the Clinton administration used as a fake white house correspondant to avoid actually answering to the American People? Yeah . . . there not really all the same are they LMAO . . . nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Ben Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FISA
Spying on journalists and newsgathering organizations in this broad a manner is something I think even the currently constituted Supreme Court would have a problem with. I am guessing that as we discuss this, the NYT, Washington Post and others are busy submitting their FOIA requests to see if there is anything to the story. It could be a good test of the sincerity and robustness of Obama's policies on greater transparency and openness -- which include specific directives concerning FOIA requests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security!
Encrypting of emails is rather simple if you take the time.
I don't IM and email once in a blue moon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Security
http://www.justaskgemalto.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons to care.
What if the government is doing something wrong? Don't you think that spying on the media could be helpful in covering it up? Think about that for a moment. This could be the end of any hope of any govenment misconduct ever reaching the public. Easily. The implications are horrifying. If the government can spy on the press,
If you can secretly collect evidence, manufacturing evidence gets a whole lot easier. It's a worst-case scenario, but anticipating worst case scenarios is what the constitution is all about.
We're not supposed to just blindly trust the government. The constitution is based on the idea that the Government must be bound by law, and this seriously weakens that. Please don't tell me that you're undermining the constitution to protect my tender white ass. The Constitution is one of the few things that I care about more than my tender white ass. The president doesn't take a vow to protect our tender asses, he takes a vow to protect THE CONSTITUTION. More than a place, more than a people, America is a great idea, and the Constitution is where that idea is written down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Part of that requires the President and those under him to follow the laws of the land. Bush may get off on the to the best of abilities clause but this was obviously illegal. The law has to equally apply to the president and every other citizen, resident and visitor to this country or it is meaningless.
The exit interviews of the Bush administration officers show a stunning lack of awareness of the peril of their position. Cheney may have incriminated himself three or four times in this process.
Fortunately the current management understands this better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why no one from the Bush Administration would ever testify, EVER, under oath (they cant legally lie then - if they cant lie, then they cant say anything). Remember BUSH even refused to testify or allow anyone from his administration to testify in front of the damn 911 commision (and he or the VP never did testify - they had a chat, not under oath and with no record), thats how concerned with our security he really was (alot less then his concern for some ole fashioned CYA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]