the mercury news is reporting that the feds asked for google search data.
the washington post is reporting that the feds asked for google search data.
npr is reporting that the feds asked for google search data.
the register is reporting that the feds asked for google search data.
information week is reporting that the feds asked for google search data.
cnn is reporting that the feds asked for google search data.
the list goes on, and on, and on.
and before slithering through the loophole of your own creation, herr tiggee never claimed the government asked for individual's search records. he claimed they asked google to turn over its search records. you added the individual's records claim in a later post.
[ February 09, 2006, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]
Full Version: Bush ordered NSA to spy on Americans...
QUOTE
and before slithering through the loophole of your own creation, herr tiggee never claimed the government asked for individual's search records.
Oh he didn't, huh? Hmmm...QUOTE
Herr Tiggee
Where I surf on Google is none of the government's god damned business.
(Emphasis added.)Where I surf on Google is none of the government's god damned business.
If the word "I" doesn't refer to an individual, then centuries of Language Arts are out the window.
No need to apologize, thersis.
As I mentioned before, the government never asked Google to turn over records of individuals' searches; instead, they desire general search information that explains if certain search terms link to child pornography. For example, they desire to know if the search term "kiddie" would turn up any links to child porn, and if so, how often. They're not concerned with "kiddie" turning up a dozen hits to, say, a kiddie amusement park, etc.
It is this narrow focus that has garnered the support of a bipartisan group of people, who realize it's important to protect children in an age where child porn and child sexual assaults seem to be on the rise (or at least more newsworthy).
BTW, I find it quite interesting that Google didn't fight itself being censored by the Chinese government. Instead, Google went right along with the request to disallow access to many places and to inform China of certain things; yet in our own country, they don't want to help determine how pedophiles might be able to access child porn.
[ February 09, 2006, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Oh la la! Now (thanks Americablog), even the right-wing papers are mixing it up. According to none other than the Washington Times mag, Warrantless Wiretapper:
A heck of a job! God, please help us!
- has allowed wiretapping on Americans talking to Americans who aren't al Qaeda suspects inside the US;
knows the wiretapping is ineffective, since al Qaeda caught on long ago;
and his team know of specific al Qaeda plotters in the country, but it can't find them (like before 9/11).
A heck of a job! God, please help us!
QUOTE
The sources provided guidelines to how the administration has employed the surveillance program. They said the National Security Agency in cooperation with the FBI was allowed to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of any American believed to be in contact with a person abroad suspected of being linked to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
At that point, the sources said, all of the communications of that American would be monitored, including calls made to others in the United States. The regulations under the administration's surveillance program do not require any court order.
**
U.S. law enforcement sources said that more than four years of surveillance by the National Security Agency has failed to capture any high-level al Qaeda operative in the United States. They said al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers.
\"They have been way ahead of us in communications security,\" a law enforcement source said. \"At most, we have caught some riff-raff. But the heavies remain free and we believe some of them are in the United States.\"....
**
The law enforcement sources said the intelligence community has identified several al Qaeda agents believed to be in the United States. But the sources said the agents have not been found because of insufficient intelligence and even poor analysis.
At that point, the sources said, all of the communications of that American would be monitored, including calls made to others in the United States. The regulations under the administration's surveillance program do not require any court order.
**
U.S. law enforcement sources said that more than four years of surveillance by the National Security Agency has failed to capture any high-level al Qaeda operative in the United States. They said al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers.
\"They have been way ahead of us in communications security,\" a law enforcement source said. \"At most, we have caught some riff-raff. But the heavies remain free and we believe some of them are in the United States.\"....
**
The law enforcement sources said the intelligence community has identified several al Qaeda agents believed to be in the United States. But the sources said the agents have not been found because of insufficient intelligence and even poor analysis.
I wonder if any of the NSA guys got off on listening in on phone sex and rweading sexy emails being sent around the world? 
wink 
wink
Did they ever stop to think that these guys may come from cultures and lo-tech societies that are very good at non-electronic communication and patient enough to use the equivalent of snail-mail in the undercover industry.
Not to mention having dealt with some of the most repressive freespeech-challenged theocracies on the planet, who have centuries of experience at torture and mind-control. The only thing they can not combat is open societies.
Not to mention having dealt with some of the most repressive freespeech-challenged theocracies on the planet, who have centuries of experience at torture and mind-control. The only thing they can not combat is open societies.
Would that include "going to the library?" Nice to know that THEIR rights will be protected by some of our own Maid Marians, but what about the rest of us, not to mention the Cubans'? Shhh!
Going to a destination is not necessarily an expression of free speech. Being inhibited from protesting a prohibition from going there would be.
Free speech is frequently inhibited in western nations by peer pressure to conform or misinterpretations of what is said in such a way as to confuse the intention of the speaker.
We are better at that only from greater practice.
Free speech is frequently inhibited in western nations by peer pressure to conform or misinterpretations of what is said in such a way as to confuse the intention of the speaker.
We are better at that only from greater practice.
Thanks to
Self-censureship due to peer pressure is more likely in the West, whereas direct government regulation is the norm in China. There are perhaps interesting parallels to racist behavior, which is tolerated when private in the USA.
Edit to add: The Link for the quote above.
[ February 15, 2006, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
QUOTE
Liu Zhengrong, who supervises Internet affairs for the information office of the Chinese State Council
an interesting debate is pecrcolating as to the difference between policies toward free speech on the internet between China and the West.Self-censureship due to peer pressure is more likely in the West, whereas direct government regulation is the norm in China. There are perhaps interesting parallels to racist behavior, which is tolerated when private in the USA.
Edit to add: The Link for the quote above.
[ February 15, 2006, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
It would be interesting to know the deals that had to be made with Republican senators if the Bush administration is able to pull this one off.
One editorial on the recent compromise...
The White House has hammered out a deal with key senators on a proposal to give congressional blessing to the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. The president has the inherent authority to conduct the program, which is organically connected to his war-making powers. But, realistically, Congress was not going to allow the NSA brouhaha to pass without taking some action. The key question, then, was what form congressional intervention would take, rather than whether there would be any or not.
In light of that, the compromise between the White House and the Republican senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee seems a reasonable one. The standards should be that any legislation not infringe on the president's inherent authority (at least not any more than the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already does), not increase the power of the courts over national security, and not hamper the operation of the NSA program. This deal appears to meet these standards, although much will depend on the drafting and even more importantly, the implementation.
First, it would create a bipartisan seven-member “terrorist surveillance subcommittee” that would be fully briefed and kept up-to-date on the program. This is a good idea, although it will represent an unprecedented level of congressional involvement in the executive's intelligence activities. Congress wants to hear justifications for each and every act of warrantless surveillance. This is extraordinary. The White House should make it clear that with this new oversight comes new responsibility. Usually, congressional oversight means merely after-the-fact finger-pointing. In this case, it should mean that Congress is fully vested in the NSA program and committed to helping make it work. That will require Congress policing itself when it comes to leaks.
The deal would also require the administration to obtain wiretapping warrants from the FISA court whenever possible. This is where the legislative language will be particularly important. If it is merely hortatory, it won't be objectionable. In circumstances where getting a FISA warrant is possible — when the Fourth Amendment-required probable-cause standard can be met and there is time for the extensive approvals necessary — of course the administration should get one. The problem will be if the legislation in any way extends the reach of the FISA court.
Bush's critics like to portray the court as a rubber stamp, which leaves one to wonder why they also maintain that it is so important. But the court isn't so pliable. It tried to eviscerate a central portion of the Patriot Act shortly after its passage, demanding that, contrary to the legislation, the pre-9/11 “wall” between prosecutors and counter-intelligence agents remain in place. The court was slapped down by the FISA court of review. The Justice Department reports that, in the two years that followed that ruling (2003 and 2004), the court, which had a history of almost never fiddling with the department's surveillance requests, made 173 “substantive modifications” of applications before granting them. The total number is now undoubtedly much higher than that — figures for 2005 and 2006 have not been provided to Congress yet.
Under the deal, the administration could conduct surveillance for 45 days without FISA approval, so long as one person on the monitored communication is outside the United States and is a suspected member of a terrorist group — exactly what appear to be the circumstances of the bulk of NSA wiretaps. This is a kind of retroactive blessing of the program. After 45 days, the attorney general would have to tell the newly created subcommittee why getting a FISA order wasn't possible. This shouldn't be a problem so long as there have been good reasons for keeping the NSA program out from under FISA, as we believe there have been.
Given what might have been in the offing from Congress, none of this is particularly objectionable. Sen. Arlen Specter wanted to extend the reach of the judiciary by getting the FISA court (bizarrely) to issue an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the NSA program, and effectively conduct oversight over the program. But oversight is not the role of the courts, but of Congress.
The White House should be very clear what it expects from this bargain. There can be no leaks, and if there are, Congress will have disgraced itself as an institution. If Congress is going to be to be informed of the NSA program on such an intimate basis, it means that the irresponsible criticisms of the program should stop. Now is the time for Congress either to put up or shut up. If it thinks the program is lawful and necessary to our security, it can come on board as outlined in this deal; if not, it should cut off the program's funding.
This nascent bargain between the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee has the makings of that rarest animal on Capitol Hill these days — judicious and sensible action to address a roiling controversy.
QUOTE
The White House has hammered out a deal with key senators on a proposal to give congressional blessing to the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. The president has the inherent authority to conduct the program, which is organically connected to his war-making powers. But, realistically, Congress was not going to allow the NSA brouhaha to pass without taking some action. The key question, then, was what form congressional intervention would take, rather than whether there would be any or not.
In light of that, the compromise between the White House and the Republican senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee seems a reasonable one. The standards should be that any legislation not infringe on the president's inherent authority (at least not any more than the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already does), not increase the power of the courts over national security, and not hamper the operation of the NSA program. This deal appears to meet these standards, although much will depend on the drafting and even more importantly, the implementation.
First, it would create a bipartisan seven-member “terrorist surveillance subcommittee” that would be fully briefed and kept up-to-date on the program. This is a good idea, although it will represent an unprecedented level of congressional involvement in the executive's intelligence activities. Congress wants to hear justifications for each and every act of warrantless surveillance. This is extraordinary. The White House should make it clear that with this new oversight comes new responsibility. Usually, congressional oversight means merely after-the-fact finger-pointing. In this case, it should mean that Congress is fully vested in the NSA program and committed to helping make it work. That will require Congress policing itself when it comes to leaks.
The deal would also require the administration to obtain wiretapping warrants from the FISA court whenever possible. This is where the legislative language will be particularly important. If it is merely hortatory, it won't be objectionable. In circumstances where getting a FISA warrant is possible — when the Fourth Amendment-required probable-cause standard can be met and there is time for the extensive approvals necessary — of course the administration should get one. The problem will be if the legislation in any way extends the reach of the FISA court.
Bush's critics like to portray the court as a rubber stamp, which leaves one to wonder why they also maintain that it is so important. But the court isn't so pliable. It tried to eviscerate a central portion of the Patriot Act shortly after its passage, demanding that, contrary to the legislation, the pre-9/11 “wall” between prosecutors and counter-intelligence agents remain in place. The court was slapped down by the FISA court of review. The Justice Department reports that, in the two years that followed that ruling (2003 and 2004), the court, which had a history of almost never fiddling with the department's surveillance requests, made 173 “substantive modifications” of applications before granting them. The total number is now undoubtedly much higher than that — figures for 2005 and 2006 have not been provided to Congress yet.
Under the deal, the administration could conduct surveillance for 45 days without FISA approval, so long as one person on the monitored communication is outside the United States and is a suspected member of a terrorist group — exactly what appear to be the circumstances of the bulk of NSA wiretaps. This is a kind of retroactive blessing of the program. After 45 days, the attorney general would have to tell the newly created subcommittee why getting a FISA order wasn't possible. This shouldn't be a problem so long as there have been good reasons for keeping the NSA program out from under FISA, as we believe there have been.
Given what might have been in the offing from Congress, none of this is particularly objectionable. Sen. Arlen Specter wanted to extend the reach of the judiciary by getting the FISA court (bizarrely) to issue an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the NSA program, and effectively conduct oversight over the program. But oversight is not the role of the courts, but of Congress.
The White House should be very clear what it expects from this bargain. There can be no leaks, and if there are, Congress will have disgraced itself as an institution. If Congress is going to be to be informed of the NSA program on such an intimate basis, it means that the irresponsible criticisms of the program should stop. Now is the time for Congress either to put up or shut up. If it thinks the program is lawful and necessary to our security, it can come on board as outlined in this deal; if not, it should cut off the program's funding.
This nascent bargain between the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee has the makings of that rarest animal on Capitol Hill these days — judicious and sensible action to address a roiling controversy.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.