A Trip Down Memory Lane: People Warned What Would Happen When Congress Passed Bills To Enable Vast Spying
from the let's-go-back dept
One of the points we've made throughout this discussion on the revelations around widespread NSA surveillance is that if you had been paying attention, none of this should have come as a surprise. It's just the confirmation of the exact issues that people raised. In 2007, when Congress passed the "Protect America Act," some people quickly pointed out that it massively expanded warrantless surveillance with little oversight:But the hastily-enacted legislation, dubbed the Protect America Act, does more than permit the interception of foreign-to-foreign communications. It permits warrantless surveillance "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." There is no language specifically restricting surveillance activities to communications originating outside of the United States.And then, a year later, we got the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which raised more concerns:
In passing the FISA Amendments Act, Congress gave the executive branch the power to order Google, AT&T and Yahoo to forward to the government all e-mails, phone calls and text messages where one party to the conversation is thought to be overseas. President Bush signed the bill into law Thursday morning, describing it as a bill that "protect[s] the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence."Of course, last year, the FAA was up for renewal and we spent a lot of time discussing how folks in the House and the Senate (1) pretended that it only applied to foreign calls (when it clearly did not) and then (2) ignored Senators Wyden and Udall, who repeatedly made it clear that the law was being abused in this way, and asked others in Congress to demand a full and public accountability.
And, of course, the nefariousness here is not a partisan issue. Both of the laws above were signed by President Bush, and while President Obama campaigned on the fact that he would end such practices, we can safely say that that never happened.
So, while it's good that people are now realizing just how widespread the spying is, perhaps next time, when the same group of folks raise the alarm at these bills, they shouldn't be ignored or brushed off to the side as "oh you guys again..."
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: fisa, fisa amendments act, nsa, patriot act, protect america act, surveillance, warrantless wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
Yeah, I'm basically just crowing today. Much of what I've said is now admitted.
BUT my goal is to get you kids to see the obvious patterns of corporatism and for ten seconds to consider jumping ahead of the current revelations to asking WHAT'S NEXT, and HOW DO WE STOP IT? You know they're planning more.
Getting The Rich and their corporations back under control with steeply progressive tax rates is proven effective and an again achievable goal that'll have large popular support. Stop letting them steal us blind. Stop their "austerity" programs. The poor are not the problem; we didn't start the class war. Society isn't just for The Rich, and the rest to be serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
You. Are. Nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
Got any proof of this supposed effectiveness?
And you still haven't explained how "taxing success" will benefit society in the long run. Sounds more like you wishing to clip the wings of those who dare to fly to keep the Dodos from extinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
Nor is the problem here already about big corporations.
This is about a continuing trend of the slide from democracy to a police state style dictatorship. Some corporations have helped cause that trend with all the laws they buy that benefit them financially in the short term, but this isn't one of those cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of the problem
Why do we set up an inherently undemocratic system of governance that we believe will actually work?
We have corporations that are managed by middlemen who make short term profit with long term costs. The workers have no say in just such a system.
That's liberalism in a nutshell. What we've done is go right back to the 1920s where a private market has been said to work best without the government, the rich can rule the country, and nothing can be done for the public.
And we've watched that argument explode in the face of every right wing person for the past 30 years as the public has suffered for it. Lobbyists and lawyers control Congress over the demands of the people, gerrymandering has effectively taken away the voice of minorities in America, and our politicians fight each other while protecting the rich and powerful.
But the debt really isn't a problem because Obama is indeed paying it down. Our deficit is also going down.
The rights and liberties we cherish in a democratic republic? That's what's going down. Screw the 2nd Amendment. I want my 4th and 5th Amendment rights. I want my 14th Amendment rights. I want the right to speak without being incriminated like Aaron Schwartz. I want the right to protest a war without being labeled a terrorist. I want the right to argue with someone who I might not agree with politically so that we can find the flaws of our position and improve our nation.
But what I don't want is to believe that our government can't be brought to heel. I refuse to believe that our democracy is so far gone that we can never attain it.
So the problem has a solution. Force Congress to listen to the people instead of the money that's already in politics. Force our corporations to be changed to something far more beneficial. We tried reforms to the system. It's time for some new ideas. We can try minimal income projects similar to Social Security. That seems to have worked for the past 75 years. Other projects I can think of are co-ops where the workers decide what they produce, where they produce and how they produce. Obviously, this creates new challenges than just raising taxes and watching the same movie play out a little faster than when it occurred in 1932.
ootb does have a point, no question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Part of the problem
It's recognizing that taking away power while not taking away corporate power will maintain the status quo and make it worse for people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yot, here's Mike saying "Nah nah, told you so".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/DoD_NetOps_Strateg ic_Vision.pdf
$ md5sum DoD*
7967f1ee6086189f84d8f19c3effa5d3 DoD_NetOps_Strategic_Vision-anon.pdf
7967f1ee6086189f84d8f19c3effa5d3 DoD_NetOps_Strategic_Vision-orig.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
...[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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
...But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.
The following year, when Congress mandated that men who enlisted must sign on for three years or the duration of the conflict, whichever came first, offers of cash and land bounties became an absolute necessity. The states and the army also turned to slick-tongued recruiters to round up volunteers. General Washington had urged conscription, stating that “the Government must have recourse to coercive measures.” In April 1777, Congress recommended a draft to the states. By the end of 1778, most states were conscripting men when Congress’ voluntary enlistment quotas were not met.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Myths-of-the-American-Revolution.html#ixzz2VYYXSg5 A
It appears to me that even once the "emotions" of a revloution are felt it will still require conscripting Americans to the realization that freedom from a government that has shredded the constitution working only in the interests of the rich ruling class is worth fighting against and to drag them away from their "Chimney corners" will take a truely revolutionary commitment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boiled Frog
Of course, the problem with the boiled frog story is that it turns out (from experiment—although I didn't perform this experiment myself), it turns out the frog actually does jump out of the water no matter how slowly you bring it up towards a boil.
Are frogs smarter than people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, we took away the dam, and then our town was flooded?
And you're saying that after a few decades of the dam being successful we decided we didn't need the dam anymore because the river already knew not to flood us? So we got rid of the dam?
And you're saying that the river then flooded our town because we didn't have a dam to block it anymore?
OMG! Who could have EVER foreseen this problem! Congress sure couldn't, because they got rid of the dam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind this bill was signed in by Obama and the original FISA amendments from Bush Jr. only gathered communications data when someone of a foreign nation called another foreign person in the US who was just visiting the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why say it myself when it's been said so well?
--James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (emphasis mine)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope. If it's a dipshit, extremist, alarmist punk such as yourself whining about the government, most people will absolutely not believe one word. Why should they? You're too scared to state a definitive position on the propriety of copyright. You're too scared to discuss your own beliefs directly. Why should anyone believe a coward who hides behind weasel words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike says that copyright needs reform, and so lets research the problem, hold discussions, and see if a consensus can be arrived at.
Your continuous attacks add nothing to the discussion, and show someone who has the answer they want, and is not prepared to discuss it. Your attitude is aligned with the creation of a fascist empire, where you agree with those in power, or go to the re-education camps or worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually none of this should have come as a surprise
There were plenty of people back then quoting Ben Franklin -- "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security". It was as clear back then as it is now, and the current situation is the inevitable consequence of the "patriot act". As long as Americans fantasize that we can be free of all terrorism, we will give the securitat all the rope it needs to hang us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Orwell, Animal Farm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: George Orwell, Animal Farm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks America. Fuck you, too.
-All Canadians and the rest of the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stumbling from one war into another. America should concentrate on it's own domestic issues... But alas, America goes out of it's way to 'smell the farts' of other countries.
As an American, without power, but with a small voice I give my apologies to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Different cultures have different ways. Thinking you can step in and create a political culture that you understand is not the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When that insane dictator poses no threat to you, it is wrong. Besides, that's not even why we invaded Iraq.
"Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." -- John Adams
The US should not be, and in the long run cannot be, the world's policeman for three fundamental reasons: First, what gives us the right? Second, by doing so we will inevitably feel the need to force everyone else to bend to our wishes. Third, because we cannot do it without doing ourselves great harm in the long run, both economically and politically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to check ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason for the founding of Israel in two words:
The Holocaust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]