Obama Administration Says It Can Spy On Americans, But Can't Tell You What Law Allows It
from the secret-laws! dept
Remember how President Obama, while campaigning, promised to reject the questionable spying practices of the federal government of President Bush? Yeah, forget all that. Over the past two years, we've seen time and time again that he's actually extended those abuses even further. The latest to come out is that the Justice Department is now claiming that the FBI has the right to get phone records on any call made from inside the US to an international number without any oversight. You may recall a few years back that there was a similar controversy, when it came out that the FBI would regularly just call up phone companies and ask for records -- despite the fact that this violates certain laws designed to protect consumer privacy. Sometimes, they would just use post-it notes.Apparently, a year ago, McClatchy newspapers put in a FOIA request, asking for the details of a particular Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that was mentioned in the (previously released, but highly redacted) report that showed how frequently the FBI abused the law in this manner. The OLC took its sweet time responding, but finally responded, and in the cover letter admitted that the Obama administration believes it is perfectly legal for the FBI to route around the in-place oversight for getting access to such records and claimed that the law said so.
Which law says so? Oh, see, that they can't say. Yes, the part of the letter that explains which law lets the FBI get these records without oversight was redacted.
It's a secret law! And here I thought, in the US, if the government was going to base actions on a particular law, at the very least, they were supposed to tell you what law. Apparently, the Justice Department under the Obama administration does not believe that to be the case.
Basically, what this means is that the federal government believes that it's free to request information without first getting court approval -- and without telling the public what law says they're allowed to get this information. That's not what the laws on the books seem to say at all. But, of course, big telcos such as AT&T, who are so closely tied to the government, are going to roll over and give the government such info (or, perhaps, give them direct access to the info), even if it violates other laws. Why do you think President Obama voted to support giving telcos retroactive immunity on this issue, while he was running for President despite having earlier said he was against it? Now that he's in power, he apparently is perfectly happy to let the FBI twist the clear intentions of the law to spy on Americans without oversight, and then to refuse to reveal what law he's relying on to make such spying on Americans without oversight legal.
McClatchy quotes Michael German, a former FBI agent, who now works for the ACLU pointing out the obvious:
"It's wrong that they're withholding a legal rationale that has to do with the authorities of the FBI to collect information that affects the rights of American citizens here and abroad.... The law should never be secret. We should all understand what rules we're operating under and particularly when it comes to an agency that has a long history of abuse in its collection activities."And so far, it doesn't seem like most people care. About the only politician who really seems concerned about this is Senator Wyden, who says this level of secrecy "is a serious problem" and he's "continuing to press the executive branch to disclose more information to the public about what their government thinks the law means." Once again, kudos to Senator Wyden for being one of a very small number of politicians who seems to consistently be concerned about the rights of individuals. But it's sad that the rest of our elected officials aren't up in arms about this. The government shouldn't be spying on Americans, and if it is, it should at least have to tell Americans what law it's basing that decision on.
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: fbi, justice department, phone records, spying, warrantless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This just shows...
Each just wants to make sure the have complete control and keep it long enough to get rid of those suggestions that they do right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This just shows...
the democrats are the snotty rich who try to kept the peasants from rebling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This just shows...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facist State?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facist State?
not facist, dear goodness me
My physiognomy will not be Objectified!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet you I'm breaking a million secret laws right now as we speak. You too. We're all criminals!!!! We should all go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government doesn't want everyone in jail; just the ones that annoy them. But the government can't just lock up people it doesn't like, since there would be public outrage. The public, however, is usually fine with locking up criminals.
So the solution is to just to turn everybody into a criminal. Then, if you only selectively prosecute the ones who annoy you, you can avoid backlash, since the attitude of the public is generally a completely lack of empathy or foresight ("Well, if he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have worn polka-dots on Sunday. Duh. There's a law. You can't just ignore the law. Ignorance is no excuse!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
PT1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YonLbe_DiFI
PT2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ex 1aXWois
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
Although I've also put it up as a free download elsewhere, so don't consider that the only source. I'm actually stunned that more people don't know the history of that program and the way the govt. basically just gave the people that caused it to be "banished" the middle finger....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Don't need no Stinkin' Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No fan of the Bush years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No fan of the Bush years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance...
[Citizen]: I did? What law?
[Government]: This law. This secret law we cannot tell you about.
[Citizen]: But..but..how I can I avoid breaking a law I know nothing about.
[Government]: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. GUILTY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gilmore v. Gonzales again
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
(note: I chose anonymity in solidarity with Mr. Gilmore. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo?
Wait, what? Does he work for the FBI now? Or before? Or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo?
Oops. Now works for the ACLU. Fixed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To misquote
In 2001 we gave up our freedom in the name of "security". Gee, guess what happened? :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution
Thankfully we are at a somewhat unique moment in history in which individual citizens are capable of far more than ever before. I suspect we'll see a day where all our communications/data are fully end to end encrypted long before these (non)laws are fixed. The change will be slow at first, but I suspect it will become simple enough that adoption will be simple and widespread.
And the arms race of personal power vs. government/corporation power is just starting to come closer to balance. I hope to see that balance shift in favor of personal power in my lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
adoption of end to end encryption has been slow going because so few people are dissidents. however, a great many of them are file sharers, which this particular administration seems to have taken aim at.
I hope to see that balance shift in favor of personal power in my lifetime.
action is cheaper than control. it's just so much easier to think stuff up and do it than it is for a central authority to keep individual actions under control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Care or Afraid?
And many of the ones who do are afraid to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really guys?
With everything that has been going on WITHIN the United States, home grown terrorists, bombing plots, etc. the fact that our federal government is taking action to protect us isn't a bad thing... and again, if you're not doing something you shouldn't be doing "WHY DO YOU CARE?" The complaints made by overly concerned individuals do nothing to help us from a homeland security point of view... all they do is give potential terrorists more wiggle room to conduct terrorist activities. And guess what people, they don't even have to break any laws cause the current laws protect them!
So who cares if the FBI is pulling phone records? Who cares if certain things are kept private... it's not in an attempt to deny information, but to protect it. There is a thing called probable cause and if they feel there is a need, please by all means, for my safety, for my families safety, and for every other law abiding citizen out there, have at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
Americans need to grow up and accept that privacy is stupid in the face of fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
If they were actually trying to protect people, actually trying to fight terrorism, they'd actually get warrants and whatnot before acting. The fact that they want to do this stuff without anyone knowing the particulars means that fighting terrorism is just a facade, and their actual motives are something they don't want publicly known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nothing+wrong%22+%22nothing+to+hide%22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
Recent study suggested the average American commits *three felonies per day*.
If someone wants to put you in jail, it's not that hard. While you say there's no problem if you're not doing anything illegal, the problem is you almost certainly are doing something illegal, and just don't realize it.
There is a thing called probable cause and if they feel there is a need, please by all means, for my safety, for my families safety, and for every other law abiding citizen out there, have at it.
Yes, there is a thing called probable cause, and probable cause will get you a warrant. The whole problem here is that they did not get a warrant, so they did not show probable cause to get the information. Why not? Perhaps because they didn't have probable cause...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
Following the laws put in place to protect our freedoms shouldn't be a matter of inconvenience for those sworn to protect those freedoms. And people do have the right to care when personal privacies are violated in the name of “homeland security” regardless of legal or illegal activity. It is our right as established by our founding fathers; and when those rights are violated, it is our right to voice our objections and demand that justice is served.
…That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
-The Declaration of Independence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
Because if they can spy on us without any law as justification for it, then they can do anything they want without any law backing it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
"and again, if you're not doing something you shouldn't be doing "WHY DO YOU CARE?""
It seems that you are trying to make a point here. If it were a perfect world then you would have a very valid point. The problem is this is not a Utopian society. The government is made up of and run by people (who are not perfect). Back in junior high they taught us a saying..."Absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why we have a constitution as we do. It was set up that way to prevent this from happening. Just because something is "legal" today doesnt mean it wont be "illegal" tomorrow (or vise-versa). Back in the day, if the government (king) was suspicious of you he would park a few soldiers (government agents) in your living room to keep an eye on you. This is now prohibited by the constitution for obvious reasons.
The point of this should not be "if you are not doing something wrong you dont need to fear the gov. but whats the difference between agent in your living room and an agent (actively) monitoring your communications. Be it verbal, written, electronic, or other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
Put it another way. If the FBI calls up the judge and says "We have a suspected terrorist and we want to watch his international calls, can we have a warrant" Judge - "sure" 100% of the time. So, what is this report actually saying? We have sped up the process which will save tax payers money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really guys?
Right. Speed up the process by bypassing that whole pesky warrant and judge thing. You know, that part that is due process. That whole Constitutionally protected part.
Bypassing that part of the process is not worth any amount of savings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
The point is that this "due process" only matters if there's any 'process' worth discussing.
Before this law, it was already routine to rubber-stamp any request without scrutinizing it in the least; approving every single request without ensuring that they're valid and applicable isn't "process" in any meaningful sense of the word.
In other words, there has been absolutely no due process for years... so this whole "outrage over a lack of due process" thing is pointless and hypocritical, because we had already allowed a de facto dissolution of due process by allowing the rubber stamp "due process" to happen in the first place.
Put another way, this outrage is completely toothless because we let the change which really mattered -- that is, the change from "scrutinizing requests" to "not scrutinizing requests" occur years ago, and we're just objecting to a minor formality: enshrining into law what was already common practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
I will concede that my outrage is probably toothless to some degree because yes, we have let the change you described happen.
I have been concerned about asset seizure laws since the 80's and 90's when I watched a lot of police departments using the laws as fundraisers. The requirements were revised from "probable cause" to "a preponderance of the evidence" and that seemed help.
Due to the fact that the domain name seizures involve websites and the fact that websites are considered speech seems to indicate that these should have had much more scrutiny then what is considered the norm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really guys?
Here's the scenario:
Citizen: Can you give us the details about this activity?
Govt: Sure, here's all the details we feel like giving you.
Citizen: This doesn't say what law allows you to do this.
Govt: No comment.
What is so special about wiretapping that it works there, and not for something else? Arrests and imprisonment for example. Censorship. Property seizure. Why do you think they'll violate the 4th amendment without any justification, but just stop there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
You know that law that you're not supposed to know what it is? Guess what, you just broke it, buddy. That's right, you're a felon, and now you're going to jail.
Try to weasel out of this one. Go ahead, I dare you, show us that you didn't break that law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
Why does it matter, if you aren't doing anything wrong? Well, only if you aren't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the current politicians in power. Is organizing a third party wrong? Is alternative, non-corporate media wrong? Was the civil right movement wrong? To a corporate bribed politician of one of the establishment parties - read 95% of Congress - it might seem wrong. Especially, if you can claim it as wrong in secret, and not face public scrutiny for it.
Again, this is the reason for the Rule of Law, and Limited Government. To avoid these kinds of abuses. And it is not merely speculative either. That's why other posters brought up COINTELPRO, look it up. The government spied on Martin Luther King, John Lennon, the Black Panthers and others. Nixon spied on his political rivals. If his rivals had not been the other establishment party, think he would have been caught? Under the current spying program authorized by Bush, we know at the very least in Maryland that anti-death penalty and anti-war activists were targeted for spying and put on terrorist watch lists. Again, don't believe me, look it up.
Some discount spying, because it is only listening, not action. But information is power. It allows governments to get inside information on groups, and use that to try to attack them or discredit them publicly. In the case of the Black Panthers it was used to insert plants in the group and spread misinformation to promote dissent and distrust within the group, fostering its breakdown. Might not be a group u like, but does this seem an appropriate way for a government to deal with a group it doesn't like, before they had been convicted of wrong doing?
We also must consider the chilling effect on free speech. Knowing any of their communications can be tapped, will people feel free to speak out against their government, to try to organize, peacefully and lawfully to change it? Could government agencies not single out communities, companies, political groups, Internet forum users, etc. for retaliation (dump government contracts, redirect government projects, release embarrassing or compromising info, reveal identities of internet authors using pen names - often used because of worry of negative reactions from employers) based on learning people's identities through spying? The list of potential abuses go on, as do the examples where known abuses have already happened.
This "why should you be concerned about privacy if your not a terrorist" reasoning is EXTREMELY dangerous. The greatest threat to our democracy is and always has been from our own government, not any foreign country or terrorist group. Sell out our freedom and what exactly are we defending from the terrorists anyways? The American government? The institution of the State? Our armed forces and political leaders do not take an oath to defend the State or the powers of government, but to uphold the Constitution.
And yes, civil liberties might make it harder for law enforcement to do its job at times. That's part of the trade off of living in a free country. You can't limit the ability of government to abuse power, without to some degree limiting its ability to use power properly. And in the long run, no matter how successful it may allow the authorities to be in thwarting terrorists, eroding our liberties in the long run will not make us safer from violence, it will expose us to much more. Either through violent repression, violent revolt, or any mix of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really guys?
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
"Better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees." (Yes, I know the actual meaning of Melior morior bellator, quam ago profugus, but that's not the point here.)
Better men than you have lived and died to serve the values that patriotic Americans believe in. Security and safety aren't among those values; liberty and freedom are.
(Note that patriotism is not obedience; one can stand for America & its values without condoning its current leadership.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really guys?
We care; not because of our doing something wrong, but because these are our rights that are being stripped from us one by one. There is a time to understand that knowledge of what is happening is much better than an empty promise coated in sugar to make you feel better about you in your home.
There never was extremely high factors of terrorist activities going on to the degree that is said to be. Even one of the generals was willing to treat civilian areas with civilians exercising their rights as a battlefield ruling of what effects need be taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where I know I'm just not free.
And I won't forget the men who lied
who took my rights from me.
And they'll gladly stand up, censor you,
and put you in Guantanamo Bay.
'Cause there ain't no doubt, they own this land.
They own the U.S.A.
Once I get around to doing the verses, I'll put those up, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
finish writing the song posting it to youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm thankful I live in a place
Where I can say the things I do
Without being taken out and shot
So I'm on guard against the goons
Trying to take my rights away
We've got to rise above the need for cops and laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come election day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, corruption and fraud, that is what apparently some people love to continue doing in the dark.
Bed Intruder quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they need..
It's not a question of Republicans or Democrats; they are both equally corrupt and voting for one or the other is NOT going to stop government spying and intimidation of anyone they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law Question
It seems like this would be illegally obtained and therefore not admissible.
If the above is true, then what exactly is the purpose of these illegal wiretaps, since they won't be used to obtain a conviction of a criminal.
Dirty laundry for future coercion?
Or does this practice only happen in cases of suspected terrorism, where the chances of a trial are between slim and none and therefore whether the wiretap was legal or not is a moot point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only dishonest politicians would object to a death penalty for corruption!
Only dishonest cops object to being on camera 24/7!
Only dishonest politicians would object to a death penalty for corruption!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only dishonest politicians would object to a death penalty for corruption!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only dishonest politicians would object to a death penalty for corruption!
Currently government demands privacy for itself and transparency from the people. That needs to be flipped around. Public institutions should be transparent, private institutions and citizens, should have privacy. Isn't that the whole idea of public vs private in the first place? Shared vs. personal, whether as property or information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CALEA was passed into law on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995.
In the years since CALEA was passed it has been greatly expanded to include all VoIP and broadband internet traffic. From 2004 to 2007 there was a 62 percent growth in the number of wiretaps performed under CALEA -- and more than 3,000 percent growth in interception of internet data such as email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did you do today, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have left zee Amerikan sector!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution and its Bill of Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOUBLECLICK AND MRS DASH THE WALMART SERIAL KILLERS
Joan Wagar was having an affair with Eric Carlson and Eric Carlson's relatives in law enforcement gave Joan Wagar permission to poison her husband to death!
Ever since I caught them in the act on a audio recorder they all brag on audio death threats!
Eric Carlson and Joan Wagar recruited co-workers at Clackamas Walmart to lie for them and the store agreed to hide Eric Carlson's employment there to hide their motive!
Authority's covered up the poisonings at the OHSU hospital by labeling the victim Terry Wagar a bad guy repeatedly to his doctor until the doctor got the hint to shut up about him being poisoned!
Terry Wagar was a plasma donor he donated twice a week at ZLB plasma center in Portland Oregon!
My whole family was recruited into Joan Wagar's and Eric Carlson's murder conspiracy and they actively lie for Joan Wagar and Eric Carlson!
My family tries to hide Eric Carlson by calling him by alias's, last known alias Eric Carlson used is Gashel!
Several family members have died suspiciously after Joan Wagar and Eric Carlson started their affair and Eric Carlson's relatives in law enforcement had my entire family under illegal video surveillance within our own homes at the time!
I am badly disabled from being repeatedly poisoned and no one cares, authority's cover it up when it's reported and on my last visit to the hospital they did not even bother to examine me let alone treat me for being poisoned.
I have received more than one audio death threat placed in my home and the people that put it there were renting the apartment above me at the time.
I caught them on video backing up their last death threat on my camcorder, but there is no one to report it to that cares!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article link to replace dead MiamiHerald one that is dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Transparency Must Be Inacted.
I'm going to college for politics after this tour through my G.I. bill and I will be all for transparency no matter who talks to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
being spied on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]