Two important pieces related to the recent flap over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act overhaul legislation known as the Protect America Act. The first from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann - channeling Edward R. Murrow in this damned fine Special Comment:


And the second, a letter to the President of the United States of America refuting his assertions and fear mongering from the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas).

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Labels: fisa, Keith Olbermann, nsa, patriot act, Silvestre Reyes, technology

Labels: fisa, George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann, media

Senators Biden and Feingold will join Chris Dodd in opposing legislation which grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations for their role in illegally collecting data on American citizens. Meanwhile President Bush, devoted his Saturday morning radio address to the important topic of fishing(mp3). I shit you not.

Now I'm not going to knock federal protections for stripped bass and red drum populations. I mean, I for one can think of no better sphere in which to exert the power and authority of the Oval Office in a time of war. It's not as if your Administration illegally conspired with telecommunications companies to acquire telephone, email, and web traffic data pertaining to every American citizen to include members of Congress, the judiciary, and officials of state and local governments. And hell, even if you did authorize such activity, I'm sure that that information isn't being abused, lost, or sold to the highest bidder or anything. That'd just be silly.

Please, sir. Please tell me you're not really going fishing.

Labels: fisa, George W. Bush, patriot act, tia, warrantless wiretaps

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the US intelligence community acted with broad support from the Bush Administration to collect data on virtually every email, phone call, and web visit originating or terminating within the borders of the United States of America.

To this end, clandestine intelligence gathering operations are conducted against the citizens of the United States. Facilities and equipment were permanently placed to collect this data without warrants from a secret intelligence court as mandated by the 1978 Foreign Service Intelligence Act. However, in most cases, telecom companies voluntarily aided data collection on their own clients without proof or accusation of wrong-doing. Qwest Communications was the only company to deny these requests. (The CEO of Qwest is currently on trial for insider trading, and maintains that his dealings were influenced by intelligence community meddling.)

As news of these operations were leaked to the media by telecom whistle blowers, calls to revise FISA grew. The argument was that the 1978 law was out of date, and incapable of providing the intelligence community with the tools necessary to protect national security in the Internet age.

A bill sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) seeks to reform FISA, but has an added provision supported by the Bush Administration which would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government illegally spy on Americans. President Bush has stated that he will veto any national surveillance bill that does not contain such provisions.

However, “because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward...One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting...” That one Senator is Chris Dodd (D-Conn, Presidential Candidate 2008).

Please support Senator Dodd with a kind word, a message of support, or even a campaign donation to help show the Democratic Party in this country that Americans will not stand for indiscriminate attacks on our Bill of Rights.

One final word on the bill currently before the Senate, the one sponsored by Jay Rockefeller...Here's a glimpse of Senator Rockefeller's campaign contributors.Maybe it's time for the gentleman from West Virgina to go home.

Labels: 9/11, Chris Dodd, fisa, George W. Bush, Jay Rockefeller, technology, tia, warrantless wiretaps

Labels: fisa, nsa, patriot act, technology, warrantless wiretaps

"I'm not doing anything wrong, so let them monitor whatever they want," is a commonly heard mantra of Americans willing to forfeit their right to privacy for the perception of security. I heard it myself just yesterday when a politically minded grandmother called into a show on a major network regarding the crimes committed by the FBI.

If you encounter such an argument around the water cooler or at the dinner table, here are a few gems you can bust out to force some critical thinking on the part of your mark (Warning: Cognitive dissonance resulting from these tactics can produce unpredictable responses in some citizens who are already scared, manipulated, and entranced).

Set the stage by discussing the nature data-mining. Avoid the term "data-mining" because the word data scares people. It's techno-babbly jargon. Use terms like dragnet, it's folksy. Ask your mark if they're a criminal; this will get their attention immediately. Naturally they'll say "No." Then ask if anyone they communicate with via phone or email has ever committed a crime. Typically the truth will be yes, but your mark will say no as the scenarios start playing through their mind (you've just planted a seed...watch it grow). Now ask if any of the friends or family of people they communicate with have ever committed a crime. Hopefully the mark will start to see the problems with wide spectrum data collection. Use props if necessary - salt and pepper shakers work.

Here's a helpful tidbit if you're by a computer:

It's an analysis of the sexual relationships of a high school. Nearly everyone is connected. If this were an investigation of criminal or terrorist activity, everyone in the network would be put to the question. It's neither fair, nor just, but that's what we're buying into if we support unchecked powers of surveillance and data collection. In such an environment everyone is guilty.

Another important point to make clear is the aspect of time. Once data is collected, it doesn't go away...ever. If you haven't spoken to someone in ten years, and suddenly they re-enter your life, can you be sure they haven't engaged in some questionable activities that would draw the attention of investigators?

Finally, what does being investigated by the feds mean anyway? Why should anyone be concerned if they haven't done anything wrong? Guilt by association. Does your mark work with children? Do they work at a company with state or federal contracts? Do they themselves work with other people's sensitive information: financial, medical, educational records? When the FBI or another agency pulls you in for an "interview" consider yourself flagged. That promotion you were counting on? A choice transfer? A move to a more desirable shift? You might not get thrown into a gulag, but your life will be impacted just the same.

Write to your Senators and Representatives and respectfully request that Congress ask for the resignation of Robert S. Mueller and Alberto Gonzales (They've offered their resignations before, why not now?). The law has been broken under their watch. They have abused their authority and squandered public trust...again. It's time for them to step down.

UPDATE: Full DOJ OIG report (pdf, 36MB).
UPDATE: Senator Schumer (D-NY) Calls For Gonzales to Step Down
UPDATE: New York Times editorial blasts Gonzales

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Charles Schumer, doj, fisa, nsa, patriot act, Robert S. Mueller, technology, tia, warrantless wiretaps

Capabilities of the equipment housed in the NSA's "secret room" in AT&T's San Francisco switching office have been the center of public debate since the disclosure last week of the existence of an NSA program capable of universal network surveillance.

Mainstream news coverage of this program has been concerned with the legality of monitoring phone statistics. However, the media has largely ignored the fact that in addition to phone calls, the NSA is also tracking the virtual movement of innocent Americans across the network.

Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, the company that provides the hardware for the NSA's San Francisco operation had this to say:

"Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record...We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their VOIP calls."

This is going to get worse before it gets better.

Labels: fisa, Information Security, nsa, tia, warrantless wiretaps

It's Presidents' Day Weekend. A time of reflection and relaxation for most. I know that I'll be doing some of each myself. Today, I'm reminded of Nixon's trip to China. It was a legendary diplomatic achievement, one of our nation's finest. Despite the transgressions of Watergate and the ensuing scandal, no one can take China away from Nixon. So how will scholars and historians view the current administration? I have a theory.

Based on everything we've seen so far, the incompetence, the bold faced lies to congress and to the American people, the political manhandling of our nation's scientists, the blatant violations of international law and treaties to include the Geneva Convention, and the current struggle to consolidate more power in the executive branch than has ever been allowed, I think that they'll view the current administration as the greatest our country has ever known.

George W. Bush, will be celebrated as a visionary leader who laid the foundations for a peaceful, democratic middle east. His administration, though dogged by an overly critical class of digitally enabled navel gazers and fringe elements of the mainstream media, will be universally recognized for its efficiency, competency, and fiscal acumen. By the end of the century, George W. Bush will be immortalized on Mount Rushmore.

Let's face it. The GOP currently controls both houses of congress, the white house, and the supreme court. They have successfully managed the media portrayal of every political topic from abortion to the environment to the economy to the extent that the average American thinks things are OK right now. This is bad.

How bad is it? Let's put it this way, last weekend, the vice president shot a man in the face, and this was enough to set the news media into enough of a frenzy that that the unwarranted wiretapping of perhaps millions - and at least thousands - of Americans will escape a congressional investigation. Not only that, but Congress is now drafting a bill which will exempt NSA wiretapping from the 1978 FISA laws.

As a former service member specializing in communications intercept and translation I was subject to these laws. I know very well the guidance and restrictions they provide to protect American civil liberties. And to those who consider the current circumstances of the so called War on Terror to be grounds to waive strict adherence to these laws, I say this:

These laws were designed during the Cold War. The United States waged this war against an enemy who threatened not the destruction of one of our cities, but a war of such profound proportion as to promise the swift and sure eradication of human existence as we know it. And yet during this war the FISA laws were proposed, enacted and adhered to by the NSA and every other intelligence gathering agency in the United States of America because that's who we are.

The world DID NOT change on September 11, 2001. We have ALWAYS been under threat, and yet have maintained the faith that every individual in this nation is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 effect their Safety and Happiness."

If we turn a blind eye to FISA now, we might as well start chipping away at Rushmore today.

Labels: 9/11, fisa, George W. Bush, war on terror, warrantless wiretaps

Yep, this sure is one fine hand basket we have here. Enjoy the ride while you can!

Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

Labels: Charles Schumer, Congress, fisa, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, patriot act, Tom Daschle

Via mefi:

Ah, yes! And so it begins. Not content with using new powers of enforcement and prosecution to simply crack down on sites peddling glassware in clear violation of the War on Drugs (tm), the DOJ has also begun collecting intelligence in a new pseudo-war right here at home.

"The leading public Internet site dedicated to online copyright piracy was seized by the Justice Department today. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff and Paul J. McNulty, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia today announced the seizure of www.iSONEWS.com (warning: read on before clicking that link) as part of a previous plea agreement entered into by a defendant convicted of violating the criminal copyright laws."

Do I sound like a broken record when I say, "But wait, it gets better”?

If you go to iSOnews.com you're likely to arrive at one of two sites. One site is a DOJ notice concerning:
1. The official seizure of the site dated February 26, 2003, and
2. The guilty plea entered by the server's owner David M. Rocci, 22, of Blacksburg, Va. to charges of conspiring to import, market and sell circumvention devices known as modification (or "mod") chips in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The other site is a mirror of the original iSOnews.com as it appeared before the announcement of this seizure.

Like the DEA case a few days ago, it is likely that visitors to this site are flagged and filed in the grand DOJ database. It is also likely that this has been the case since the date of the defendant's guilty plea: December 19, 2002.

This is the beginning of the end. Anyone possessing a large number of copies of copyrighted material will likely be targeted should these new DOJ powers withstand even a single appeal.

I guess the entertainment industries have finally found a way to end internet file trading without spending a dime.

By downloading copyrighted data, you're aiding the terrorists.

Labels: dea, doj, fisa, p2p, tia

Via NY Times (reg. req.) and CNet news:

The DEA is seeking court approval to establish honey pots for casual web surfers. That's right, if you go to a web site that's on the hit list, you'll be flagged. Welcome - one and all - to the brave new world. A bit of a stretch? Perhaps.

The CNet article by Declan McCullagh offers this to the discussion:

"Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said redirecting Web visitors to DEA.gov raises novel legal issues. "It sounds like this is a concluded drug operation segueing into a new sting operation," he said. "In effect, the defunct Web sites become electronic flypaper for those looking for illegal drug paraphernalia, reporters covering the story, and people who have trouble spelling in Google."

That said, I hope everyone reading this will practice their typing skills. Be especially careful not to type any of those banned words in the near future.

Labels: dea, fisa, nsa, privacy, tia

The supreme court is presently being petitioned by the ACLU on two very important issues:

First they ask that the court review a decision by a secret appeals court “that broadly expanded the government’s powers to spy on U.S. citizens.” (ACLU)

Secondly – and perhaps even more importantly – the ACLU has requested that they be allowed to appeal the secret court’s decision even though they were not parties in the lower court proceedings.

This RealAudio stream of “This American Life” – which often airs on Public Radio International (PRI) stations – presents a good deal of background on this topic (Warning: The program is 60 minutes long) .

What are the legal implications of the outcome of these two motions? Will a decision made by a secret court against an individual targeted for prosecution – whom may not be allowed legal council – be impervious to appeal? By denying to hear these cases, is the Supreme Court creating a monster?

Labels: aclu, fisa, patriot act, scotus, warrantless wiretaps