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, 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

WASHINGTON, May 18 Gen. Michael V. Hayden sought on Thursday to distance himself from the Pentagon and its role in prewar intelligence on Iraq, in an appearance that put him on track to win swift confirmation as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. ~ NYT

There's nothing to stand in the way of this confirmation now.

Given that the NSA has been collecting data on phone calls and web traffic for at least a couple of years now it's probably safe to say that no single member of Congress would dare speak out against this nomination. Not in an election year.

Journalists have been gelded as well. If monitoring them wasn't enough to shut them up, Alberto Gonzales is now considering prosecution.

If our government abuses its power, we have no way of knowing. Well, almost no way. After all, information wants to be free.

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, cia, General Michael Hayden, media, nsa, tia

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

After a few days of coverage most Americans are now aware the NSA is collecting data about their phone calls. All of them. Two polls were conducted to gauge public response to this revelation and found that most Americans, about 53%, do not believe the program invades people's privacy. Of those, 41% "feel it is a necessary tool to combat terrorism."

White House staff and supporters of the Administration crowed at this and an earlier poll which showed that 63% of Americans - who have no understanding of the Fourth Amendment - support the program. The rationale I've encountered on various boards and community sites for this view is: "I've got nothing to hide. I'm not a terrorist, so I don't care."

The media has told Americans the NSA is collecting statistics only. Phone numbers, number of calls to specific numbers, duration of calls and the like. And no doubt this is what was considered during the taking of these polls. But there's another dataset collected by the NSA via the telecom industry that has yet to be reported: IP addresses.

Does Joe-Six-Pack still not mind that the NSA is collecting a record of every website he goes to, how often, and for how long? Does Joe know how long this record will be archived? Does he care who has access to it, or are the employees of one government agency just as trustworthy as the next? Is Joe confident that this record will remain secret for as long as it's held? Does it matter if it gets released or compromised one day? Should this record be considered if Joe's company gets a government contract, or if he applies for a federal job? How about a passport? Does Joe still not care about the NSA surveillance program because he's not a terrorist?

Happy web surfing!

Labels: Information Security, nsa, tia, warrantless wiretaps

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

On top of this, further details were was disclosed today regarding the NSA warrantless surveillance program. The agency has apparently compiled the largest database in the world to monitor the statistics of nearly every telephone in the U.S. Also known as the "we-don't-need-no-stinkin'-Fourth-Amendment" program, this activity is in effect a preemptive fishing expedition to discover probable cause. There is no way this is legal of course as at least one telecommunications company, Qwest, well knew.

In related news, 72 members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the ACLU's lawsuit against the program.

All we need now is for Congress to grow enough backbone to start the sweetest two word mantra of them all: "under oath."

Say it with me now. Under oath. Doesn't that feel good? Try it again. Under oath. General Hayden. Under oath. Alberto Gonzales. Under oath. John Ashcroft. Under oath. Ah...it's going to be a wonderful Summer. Under oath.

Labels: aclu, Alberto Gonzales, Congress, General Michael Hayden, John Ashcroft, nsa, tia, warrantless wiretaps

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