Where's The Outrage Over The Gov't Brushing Mass Privacy Violations Under The Rug?
from the what-a-joke dept
I have to admit that I've been a bit in shock over Congress's decision to simply renew the Patriot Act, recently, without a single safeguard to protect against abuse. That's because just before all this happened, we wrote about how a report from the government found (not for the first time) that the FBI regularly abused its authority to get phone records it had no right to. This went well beyond earlier reports of abusing National Security Letters. In this case, the FBI didn't even bother with NSLs. Instead, sometimes it would just use a post-it note. On top of that, reports came out noting that just weeks before this report was released, the Obama administration issued a ruling with a blanket absolution for the FBI's activities -- basically saying that if the President said it was okay, it was fine.This is not how our government is supposed to work.
Julian Sanchez has a fantastic article that should be a must read, detailing how Obama went from being a candidate who insisted there would be "no more National Security Letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" because "that is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists," to one who appears to have no problem regularly spying on citizens and covering it up. President Bush was really bad with warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity for telcos -- and most people figured Obama would at least be marginally better on that issue. But it's really scary how the entirety of the federal government doesn't seem to care much about these blatant privacy abuses -- and the public and the press has shrugged them off as well.
Given all the reports of abuses, and Obama's campaign statements, you would think that at least the government would put in place some kind of oversight and safeguards when the Patriot Act came up for renewal. No such luck. In fact, the administration appears to have worked with Republican Senators to make this possible. I don't think this is what people meant when they expected to see more "reaching across the aisle" from the President:
Indeed, by the time the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of reauthorization in early November, legislators of both parties were venting their frustration about the scant guidance they'd gotten from the administration.Sanchez's writeup goes into a lot more detail, but it's a depressing look at today's politics, media and the public as well. Politicians from both parties first belatedly tried to "legalize" blatantly illegal spying on Americans, and then, when they had an immediate opportunity to put in place the most basic safeguards because "that is not who we are," instead conspired with each other to renew the law and completely ignore the vast and blatant abuses of it. When you wonder why so few people trust politicians, this is why.
Behind closed doors, however, the administration was anything but silent. Instead of openly opposing civil-liberties reforms that had been under consideration in the Senate, The New York Times reported in October, the Obama administration opted for a kind of political ventriloquist's routine. The Justice Department wrote a series of amendments diluting or stripping away the new protections, then laundered them through Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who offered them up verbatim.
It's worth taking a closer look at one such reform proposal -- again, predating the latest and most damning OIG report -- to get a sense of the disconnect between the administration's public and private stances. Some legislators had wanted to require the FBI to develop "minimization procedures" for NSLs, as they do when full-blown wiretaps are employed, to ensure that information about innocents is not circulated indiscriminately and that irrelevant records are ultimately discarded. This would only bring NSLs in line with other Patriot provisions compelling production of business records, where minimization is already required, and in principle, the Justice Department is already on board with this plan: As Inspector General Glenn Fine noted in his testimony before the Senate in September, the department's NSL working group was already laboring to develop such procedures in response to the abuses documented in previous OIG reports -- but the working group had been dragging their heels for more than two years.
The task of blocking any legal requirement that the Justice Department pick up the pace fell to Rep. Dan Lungren, a Republican from California. At a House markup session in November, Lungren offered up an amendment that would strip away the minimization mandate and even argued, bizarrely, that the very concept of "minimization" was inapplicable in the NSL context. He was visibly confused when Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers, after making a point of praising Lungren's "scrupulous study" of the issue, pointed out that the Justice Department itself had publicly accepted the need for such procedures.
"This is the first I had heard that the Justice Department was either considering it or had not raised any objections to this," a visibly perplexed Lungren stammered, "because it was my understanding they felt this was an inappropriate transfer of a process that is used in the electronic surveillance arena." The talking points with which Lundgren had been supplied, it seems, had not been checked against the official assurances the department had been providing.
Equally troubling is the fact that the story of the widespread spying basically disappeared after a week. Sure, lots of people are focused on the buzz du jour (healthcare, healthcare, healthcare), but how is it that everyone is just willing to forget that our own government has been spying on thousands of people in ways that flagrantly violate what the law clearly states?
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: patriot act, privcy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So instead, it's easier to just keep status quo.
There are exceptions, but for most politicians job security is their top concern. Unless voters start caring about privacy abuses, they don't have the incentive to either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What does one call an actual terrorist? How about a murderer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The way it's used today. "terrorist" is a largely meaningless term, essentially the same as calling them "enemy" or "violent criminal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only good thing about a Dem getting into office
Watching Maynard G. Krebs' idealistic fantasies crumble to dust while he impotently shakes his fist at the gathering storm clouds is one of my favorite pasttimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only good thing about a Dem getting into office
It's got nothing to do with Dems or Republicans. It's got everything to do with politics and power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only good thing about a Dem getting into office
It's got nothing to do with Dems or Republicans. It's got everything to do with politics and power.
Most certainly.
Partisanship is 'smoke and mirrors' - designed to detract from what's all really going on. You'd have to be blind or watching a LOT of Network News to miss it all.
“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people”
-Gore Vidal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only good thing about a Dem getting into office
Oh and if your just sitting around bitching about it and not trying to do anything, i really dont have that much sympathy for you.
(not pointing fingers at specific people)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You still believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't matter
Ok, ignoring generally un-informed comments, you are right about the same gang of thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intelligentsia minimized, job well done.
The only ones upset are reading this post. A skillful combination of money, corruption, distraction, fear mongering has ensured that the masses are only concerned with what _they_ want us to be concerned with.
Owning most of the mainline media, and the systematic dumbing down of the American public through our disgrace of a public school system didn't hurt either.
Unlike Po Pot, they don't have to kill the intelligentsia, they just have to minimize our numbers and our opportunities for mischief.
It's not that there's no outrage, moral or otherwise. It's just that there are too few of us for the politicians to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patriot Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4 the patriot act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 4 the patriot act
Then, like our politicians, you have not read it, and or dont really understand it.
PA1
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:hr03162:]
To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Other purposes?
PA2
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/ Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, he kept his promise there. They just use post-it notes instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On a global scale, the US doesn't really have a left, it goes from right to far right (with the far right calling the right "left").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A simple quote, to sum it up
Seriously, expecting politicians to derail their own gravy train is like expecting a heroin addict to safeguard a stockpile of heroin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
baaaaaaaa
- Think of the children
- It is for our protection
- To big to fail
- etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: baaaaaaaa
Why are you siding with the terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
caps, throttles paid blog shills total media control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because it isn't discussed on American Idol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
Second, and bear with me here, it's possible that there's a *very good reason* that they simply cannot tell us. For example, what if the President/FBI/CIA/NSA have detailed statistics about how many bombing/destruction/espionage (I don't like using 'terrorism', it's too general) plots have been foiled, specifically due to this surveillance? And if those numbers were, ah, rather high? They can't release those numbers because it would show just how many people don't like America (and because it wouldn't really stop anyone complaining)
I mean, yeah, the second reason IS kinda far-fetched, but it WOULD explain the drastic about-face on this issue. Perhaps what I'm saying is; Maybe there's a good reason. (aka, Maybe the government isn't entirely evil. Yet.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
then why do they trot out every little thing that *might* remotely resemble terrorism? why do they make a big deal out of things like shoe bombers in the media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
Radical statement, I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
If those numbers were high, then they would be trumpted from the mountaintops by the governmental propaganda machine to support their actions.
As it is, even the very few examples they have brought forth have turned out to be bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
Like with RIAA suing Pirate Bay... the people went elsewhere and are harder to track. The same would happen if these (note: theoretical) things were being caught silently now, and then trumpeted tomorrow. And, as I mentioned, it's not likely it would actually make people stop complaining.
Though... Yeah, this is a big 'Trust Us' from the government, which I do agree is suspicious. ;) I'm just putting forth the possibility that maybe they AREN'T evil, and have actual good reasons. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Warning: Large amounts of Idealism ahead
Probably too late for this to get noticed (TD really needs a comment notification system), but no, there is no good reason. I know this because there is a way for them to get secret court oversight for their secret surveillance actions. There is even a way for them to put in place emergency surveillance and get approval AFTER the fact. The best case scenario is that the people who are supposed to be investigating crime and preventing terrorism are very lazy and not interested in doing their jobs properly, or are very incompetent and are not capable of doing their jobs properly. Comforting, no?
The worst case scenario of course is that they are perfectly able and aware of how to do it right, and do not do so because they're evil. I would lean toward incompetent/lazy, but there's probably some evil too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm this comes as to a surprise to anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democrats and Republicans are on the same side on this one, and there's not a third party that's strong enough to offer a viable alternative or answer to the issue.
So with nothing to do, no call to action or solution to the angst, the story fizzles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand where you are coming from.
But...
I'd rather have freedom and liberty than 'safety by the government'.
Government can never guarantee your personal safety - ever, but they can, in fact guarantee your personal liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zombie Doc Homicide
But let me post a relevant news story or article calling for free thought or something (such as this very article) and NOONE will say a damn thing. I dont even think they click on the thing....its discouraging at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's The Outrage
what your government is actually doing is worse than
you can imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
government eavesdroppings
Meanwhile, tell them to close the prisons and let the people out. Bring our soldiers home, and don't reenlist, demand 9/11 be considered a government false flag, and video your Congressman when he tells you that he has full confidence in the 9/11 Commission Report. They get really uncomfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's The Change Baby
When Bush was in office the media want nuts about the patriot act.
Now that Bush is gone the renewal of the act gets a page 4 in the paper.
As our current president is in the process of "Fundamental Redistributive Change" of our country, he needs all the tools that he can get at his disposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]