House Approves Rep. Lamar Smith's Bill To Keep Spying On Americans

from the of-course-they-did dept

As was expected, despite not knowing the details of how the feds interpret the FISA Amendmens Act, which grants massive spying and surveillance power to the feds -- in fact, while proactively stopping any efforts to find out more about the interpretation, the House of Representatives today approved Lamar Smith's FISA Amendment's Act by a vote of 301-118. You can see which representatives voted which way at that link. The bill would extend the current rules (and the secret interpretation) for another five years. Republicans, who are supposedly against bigger government, only had 7 members vote no, while the remaining 111 no votes came from Democrats.

There had been an attempt to introduce amendments, but that was shot down procedurally. And an hour debate did little to get to the heart of the matter. Rep. Zoe Lofgren fought the good fight, pointing out that "I think the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time... We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States." However, Rep. Dan Lungren -- who previously had insisted that there was no evidence that the NSA was abusing its powers, while refusing to even ask the NSA for basic info on how it was using the powers -- insisted based on absolutely nothing that "this is critical to the protection of the American people."

Even worse, Rep. Terry Gowdy made a ridiculously ignorant statement in response to Lofgren's highlighting of the 4th Amendment:

”Intelligence is the lifeblood of our ability to defend ourselves,” he said. Moments later, he added: “Are we to believe that the Fourth Amendment applies to the entire world?”

But, uh, the concern isn't with the rest of the world. Even without the FISA Amendments Act, the NSA already had the right to seek info on foreign communications. They have no 4th Amendment rights, so that's not even an issue. The issue is that the FISA Amendments Act appears to include some weasel words that have been twisted by the government to suggest that it can spy on Americans too. But Gowdy misleads the public by pretending, falsely, that this is about foreigners? It's not. Has he asked the NSA how many Americans it's spied on? Even the NSA has admitted that it's violated the 4th Amendment under the act in spying on Americans... but Gowdy pretends this is just about foreigners? How do you stand up and call yourself a "Representative" when you can't even get the very basics right?

Of course, House approval is just one step. The Senate version remains on hold thanks to Senator Wyden, who is one of the only elected officials who is actually asking the NSA and the Obama administration to (a) reveal the secret interpretation and (b) disclose how many Americans are being spied on under the rule.

As Julian Sanchez explained recently a former DOJ official has basically revealed part of the secret interpretation, which more or less says that if the target is al Qaeda, then anything goes:

For example, an authorization targeting “al Qaeda”—which is a non-U.S. person located abroad—could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.

Take that and expand it, and you've basically given the feds and the NSA a blank slate to spy on Americans by claiming that if it believes the spying will yield information about a threat, then it's fine. And our "Representatives" are standing up and -- either through ignorance or straight-up dishonesty -- are pretending that this is about spying on foreigners only. Shameful.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, congress, dan lungren, faa, fisa amendments act, house, lamar smith, nsa, surveillance, terry gowdy, zoe lofgren

Feds Wait Until Late Friday To Admit That, Yeah, They Ignored The 4th Amendment

from the congress-will-ignore-it-anyway dept

While Senator Wyden has been banging the drum about privacy violations committed by the federal government under the FISA Amendments Act for quite some time, the rest of Congress seems perfectly content to stay ignorant and pretend that there's no possible way that the feds might be abusing the powers that let them spy on nearly anyone without much (if any) oversight. So it's interesting that Wyden was finally able to squeeze out of the Director of National Intelligence an admission that, oh yeah, the feds violated the 4th Amendment. As covered by the always awesome reporting by Spencer Ackerman at Wired:

The head of the U.S. government’s vast spying apparatus has conceded that recent surveillance efforts on at least one occasion violated the Constitutional prohibitions on unlawful search and seizure.

The admission comes in a letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassifying statements that a top U.S. Senator wished to make public in order to call attention to the government’s 2008 expansion of its key surveillance law.

The letter is embedded below. There are two key admissions in there that are new:

• It is also true that on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

Of course, they chose to release this bit of information late on a Friday evening -- exactly the time you release something when you want to bury it. The public should not let this news die. They should be asking their elected officials why they're rushing to re-approve the FAA, and have so far refused to have even the slightest curiosity about what the feds are doing with these powers -- even to the point of claiming that since they've seen no evidence of abuse (not that they've asked for it) they shouldn't assume that there is any. Well, now there's some evidence of abuse. Shouldn't Congress be seeking more information, rather than just rubber stamping a renewal of such powers?

Filed Under: 4th amendment, abuse, faa, fisa, fisa amendments act, privacy, ron wyden

Lamar Smith & House Judiciary Committee Don't Want To Know How Often The NSA Spies On Americans

from the fingers-in-ears-approach dept

Once again, we are left stunned by the sheer ridiculousness of Congress. In a House Judiciary Committee markup concerning the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a proposed amendment to require the NSA to reveal how many times it had spied on Americans was voted down 20 - 11, led by chair Lamar Smith who just kept talking about how "important" it was get past the markup phase and pass the bill. Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Lungren lashed out at those who wanted the NSA to explain how often it had spied on Americans without warrants under this bill by saying (and I kid you not): "What evidence is there that it is being used to spy on Americans?"

You see, that's the problem. The NSA doesn't have to tell anyone -- and whenever officials ask, they're given ridiculous answers, like the claim that it would violate the privacy of Americans to tell Congress how many Americans' privacy the NSA violated. It's stunning that our elected officials -- many of whom don't know themselves what the NSA is doing -- seem to have no qualms passing this update to the bill without even being willing to ask a simple question: how many Americans have been spied on using this regulation?

On the Senate side, as we've noted, Senators Wyden and Udall have been indicating (within the limitations they have, due to security clearances) that the NSA is quite clearly using this law incredibly broadly -- perhaps to the level of scooping up all phone data, which goes way, way, way beyond the text of the law. If some in Congress are so sure that there's no evidence that it's being used to spy on Americans, then have the NSA answer the damn question. But, no, instead, they insist that we just have to push it through, or, as Lamar Smith says, "We have a duty to ensure the intelligence community can gather the intelligence they need to protect our country."

You know who you have an even bigger duty to? The American public. That's who you represent. Not the intelligence community. The failure of our elected officials to give even the most basic oversight to the NSA is astonishing. It's shameful. We all deserve better.

Filed Under: congress, faa, fisa, house judiciary committee, lamar smith, marc udall, nsa, ron wyden

FAA Warns Guy Who Filmed Birds Striking Plane Engine

from the seems-sort-of-besides-the-point dept

You may recall a few weeks back that a Delta 757 leaving JFK on its way to LAX hit some birds on takeoff, damaging an engine, and requiring a quick turnaround back to JFK. The story got more interesting when it was revealed that one of the passengers on board just happened to be recording video out the window as the birds hit:
Of course, then the story went from interesting to silly, when the FAA decided that this YouTube video was evidence of wrongdoing and that it needed to "do something." At least they decided that the extent of "doing something" would be to just send the passenger a warning letter, telling him that he was supposed to have all electronic devices turned off during takeoff, and that the letter would be the extent of their actions (though they mention that they could take legal action). The letter does say that it will remain on file for two years, after which it will be dumped.

The passenger, Grant Cardone, points out that this is all pretty ridiculous:

"To think that a device, a telephone or this iPad can take down a plane is ridiculous, because figure 90% of all people in America now have an iPhone on them," Cardone said. "Nineteen percent of all people have a tablet of some sort. If only 10% of passengers on that plane had their device in the on position, thousands of planes would fall out of the sky every day."

Filed Under: airplane, bird strike, faa, grant cardone, ipad

FAA Has No Clue About Who Owns Approximately 1/3 Of All Private And Commercial Planes

from the our-government-at-work dept

johnjac points us to the news that the FAA's record keeping is so bad that it is "missing key information" on who owns 119,000 out of 357,000 registered private and commercial airplanes. Apparently, the FAA is so bad at record keeping that its solution is to phase out every plane's registration and demand that everyone apply for a new registration to get its database back on track. Apparently, the old system was that you just had to register once, and then you were responsible for letting the FAA know if info changed, but not everyone does that. So, basically, the FAA is rather clueless about approximately 1/3 of what's in the sky.

Filed Under: airplanes, data, faa
Companies: faa

Congress Pushes Forward On Banning Already Banned In-Flight Calls

from the aren't-politicians-great? dept

The crusade against the almost non-existent in-flight phone call menace continues. First, we had the FCC insist that it would not lift the ban on in-flight use of mobile phones, in part because of worries from people about having to sit next to someone yapping away. Then, a few months later, the FAA also said that it would not allow mobile phones to be used on airplanes. As we noted at the time, this seemed rather superfluous, given the FCC ruling. But, of course, when there's an issue that's already been decided, who best to step in and decide it all over again but Congress?

Yes, a Congressional representative, Peter DeFazio, has given us the (I kid you not on the name) Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (Hang Up) Act, which forbids "voice communications using communications devices on scheduled flights." We had mentioned this law when it was first proposed, but it's actually now been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

While I can understand the annoyance factor that people fear (and, yes, it's actually been shown that only hearing half of the conversation is more annoying, which is why it's different than just having people talking to each other on the plane), it's still not clear why such a law is needed. Beyond the FCC and FAA bans already in place, if such phone calls are really as annoying as most people predict, then why wouldn't airlines already ban them, rather than piss off customers? Or, more likely, you'd get some self-selection in a way that benefits everyone. Some airlines might allow phone calls, while others wouldn't -- and people can self-select. Or, some airlines may have "talking sections" and "non-talking sections," and, again, the issue is solved completely without needing a law at all. This is yet another example of Congress telling us what it thinks is good for everyone, when people are pretty well-equipped to figure that out on their own.

Filed Under: bans, congress, faa, fcc, inflight, phones, voice

Hacking The Friendly Skies In Boeing's New 787

from the someone-deserves-to-be-fired dept

Wired is running an article about FAA concerns about the computer networks on Boeing's new 787. Apparently, the airplanes have been designed with a computer network in the passenger area that can give fliers internet access. That seems reasonable enough. However, somewhere along the way, someone at Boeing decided to connect that network to the plane's control, navigation and communication systems. It's hard to fathom how anyone would ever consider connecting a general passenger network on an airplane to critical systems that actually deal with issues related to keeping the airplane in the sky. Boeing's response is less than satisfactory as well. While it claims it's fixing some of the issues raised, it also says the report is overblown, noting: "There are places where the networks are not touching, and there are places where they are." That really doesn't matter. If the network is touching anywhere it should be seen as a fairly serious problem. There's simply no good reason to connect the two in any way, no matter how "secure." Glenn Fleishman is saying that this report is Wired making a mountain out of a molehill, and insists that the story is probably not a big deal at all. Yet, I'm still wondering why the two systems would ever touch each other.

Filed Under: airplanes, faa, internet, security, wireless
Companies: boeing

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting For The FAA To Solve Nation's Air Transport Woes

from the the-sky-is-still-falling dept

The expanded use of private and smaller regional jets has been hard on the nation's air travel system, because these planes use up infrastructure at a level that's disproportionate to the number of passengers they carry. Of course, the problems we've seen all summer only heighten the appeal of private air travel, further exacerbating the problem. Making matters worse is the fact that the FAA has shown no inclination to find innovative solutions. As Lynne Kiesling points out, there are a number of creative solutions out there that could mitigate the problem, none of which are really being pursued. Airlines could be forced to bid on landing rights, for example, which would force companies to prioritize their routes in a positive manner. As it is, landing fees are based on weight, which doesn't account for the longer time small planes spend on the runways. It's also been argued that the GPS system could do a better job of monitoring traffic than the existing radar systems, but plans to go down this route have stalled due to politics. Ultimately, there's no reason to expect the FAA to be innovative. It doesn't face any market pressure and there's no risk of it going under if it doesn't adapt. Instead, the only solution pushed is to encourage airlines to stop using small planes, which isn't very creative at all. All that would do is reduce options for customers, particularly those on less-traveled routes.

Filed Under: aviation, faa

More Delusion About The Popularity Of In-Flight Net Access

from the uh-yeah dept

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the experience of commercial flying -- like poor service from airlines, and delays from technical glitches and systemic failures. But a Computerworld columnist is all hot and bothered because people can't get online or use cell phones while they're on planes. Frankly, the piece is so bizarre that it would make more sense as a badly written parody. It claims "Providing low-cost WiFi access in-flight is perfectly doable. In fact, an extremely good service was painstakingly rolled out, then later killed because of a lack of interest and support from the airlines and the government." This isn't strictly true: Boeing shut down its Connexion service because it didn't attract very many users. People were reluctant to pay $30 per flight for WiFi; this made airlines hesitant to spend the $500,000 per plane to equip them with the system. Still, the writer claims that US airlines "failed everyone" -- despite evidence that the real demand for in-flight internet access is nowhere near as great as many people assume.

But things take an even more bizarre turn when the writer turns his rant towards the government ban on cell phones on planes. He focuses on the FAA's ban, which is in place for safety reasons, ignoring the FCC's ban, which is based on the contention that devices on planes could interfere with ground networks. He says that the FAA ban, purportedly on safety grounds, merely exists so that planes' avionics and other equipment don't have to be shielded from interference. His demand is that the ban be lifted, and airlines forced to install shielding -- then that cell phones be banned again, but this time because they'd be annoying to many passengers. That seems rather pointless, but his claim that the current ban is helping terrorists makes it really hard to take the guy seriously: "And terrorists love the ban, because it's another potential way to crash airplanes. The cell phone ban as a substitute for shielding is clearly unacceptable. It's a trivial task for terrorists to look up public information about which phones cause the most interference, then bring dozens of them onboard and turn them on during crucial phases of flight, such as takeoff." Um, yeah. The fact remains that the real demand for in-flight internet service hasn't lived up to the expectations. Regardless of how many people say they'd use such services, there hasn't been enough actual use to sustain their operations. It remains expensive to equip planes with the necessary equipment to offer in-flight net access; given the way things are going at many US airlines, the majority of customers would probably rather see that money spent on things that would help get them and their luggage to their destination on time.

Filed Under: faa, fcc, telecom
Companies: boeing