White House Proposal Would Ease FBI Access to Records of Internet Activity

[Hissyspit]

Source: Washington Post

White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity

Lawyer Stewart Baker said the change would sometimes "mean giving a lot more information to the FBI."

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, as the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

- snip -

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data. To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html

[postulater]

1. The administration hates us for our freedom.

[valerief]

54. The administration wants to fight us over here so they don't have to fight us over there. nt

[saigon68]

116. if agents deem the information relevant

AssClowns

So some idiot can go snooping without a court order of probable cause.

WONDERFUL

What the fuck is wrong with Obama-- apparently he was asleep at Harvard Law School.

[valerief]

132. Either he has a gun to his head or he's just simply one of the elites. nt

[obxhead]

145. There's no gun. nt

[valerief]

162. I agree. It's the latter. nt

[flyarm]

217. no gun! Also, one man has the switch to switch it all off now as well!

Click..over and out.

[Peregrine Took]

222. I often have to remind myself that there is a "Dem" in the WH. n/t

[PatrynXX]

230. Yeah have to do that from time to time.

Not some extremist leftist like Fox makes him out to be.

Oddly one of my uncles agree's that he's kinda like Bush except on different things. I think he's just like bush on terrorism and war and the uncle is .. just like Bush on the economy. Which I disagree on.

[nutshell2002]

234. "I often have to remind myself that there is a "Dem" in the WH."

Will you please do me a favor and remind me too?

[Uncle Joe]

150. What would J. Edgar Hoover do?

If Martin Luther King were blogging today or some time in the future, would he be suspected of "terrorism?"

[valerief]

164. He'd kill the internet. nt

[Capitalocracy]

193. If Martin Luther King were blogging today, he'd probably get like 12 hits a month.

Blah blah blah, civil rights, blah blah blah, I have a dream. Oh look, this guy says Obama wants to take our guns! Ooh, and this one has pictures of Kim Kardashian's ass!

[saigon68]

198. That second photo is

[grahamhgreen]

196. As Randi Rhodes sez; When They Show You Who They Are, Believe Them! nt

[defendandprotect]

194. Once again . . . we are the enemy!

:)

[superconnected]

202. hahahaha +1

[Enthusiast]

117. LOL nt

[scentopine]

242. LOL! Freedom is just another word for pony. -nt

[DJ13]

2. Obama's President but I still feel Bush'ed

[Roland99]

128. Guess it's time we start Acting like a PATRIOT

or something.





I weep.....

[HALO141]

165. Strange, isn't it? n/t

[Dr.Phool]

167. Isn't fascism fun?

Suck on it ostriches.

[flyarm]

219. No shit!! eom

[scentopine]

245. But what can Obama do - he's only president, it's not like he has any real power...

there just aren't enough democrats in congress.

:sarcasm: only necessary because I keep hearing this shit.

[babylonsister]

3. "if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation."

I have no problem with this. To do it to anyone for no reason, I have a problem with that.

[Hissyspit]

5. Oversight is the issue.

Also whether it is Constitutional or not.

[babylonsister]

6. So do we actually know about either? And unlike

the previous admin who wanted to watch over everyone, do you think this is the goal of this admin? #1, that's impossible. ;)

[bronxkid]

16. Checks and balances should work for both parties

I don't buy into the "whoever does stuff during a Democratic administration is necessarily doing good stuff" meme.

[babylonsister]

19. I don't buy into the meme that anyone should be spying on

Americans.

I do have more faith in the current admin if they think there's a reason to instead of the previous admin who ran around like chickens thinking everyone is suspect.

[No Elephants]

36. Did you read the article? They plan to "expand" what's been done before.

[peacetalksforall]

144. There is a grand difference between the Administration and any U.S. intelligence dept

who have run their own shows for decades, stretching and breaking laws as they choose. How many intelligence departments are there - about 20? Do you think that this administration has any knowledge or say about what the DOD intelligence or CIA intelligence is doing? They despise Democrats to begin with and have always served Republicans.

The FBI helped in essential and key ways in the set-up of the impeachment of Clinton.

I thought this administration was to be about correcting excesses. I despise my stupidity.

It is all getting set up for the next R administration to let it rip against the citizens.

The Obama administration list is growing and making me more sick by the day.

I have no Party?

There won't be any lines one of these days - that is the direction.

What a bunch of crap about this being about terrorism.

Can anyone direct me a list of decisions that makes a citizen think that Cheney is still there?

Habeas Corpus is the first one on the list?

Let's add to it what HAS NOT been done - such as addressing voting impediments that are the strategies of thieves - about electronic voting machines that are the tools of theft - about lack of oversite and interest from government leaders which is a form of theft.

Each day is a take away from the citizens day. Is is indefensible.

[boppers]

220. 20 is a close guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

Officially, there are 16 major players, but in addition to the big 16, there are many sub-players, offshoot departments, etc... 250+ or so.

Great project on the topic:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

[boppers]

221. Dupe post.

I wonder if they'll ever fix this bug?

[OnyxCollie]

34. "And unlike the previous admin who wanted to watch over everyone,

do you think this is the goal of this admin? #1, that's impossible."

Biased much?

The inability to accept that the propensity to do good or bad can reside in the same person is a conservative trait.

Why do you think they wanted to watch over everyone? Are you special? Why wouldn't they just watch over important people/corporations to obtain intelligence for their benefit? And why would this administration give that up? (which they haven't)

[babylonsister]

41. You're right. I'm biased. I hope for better from this admin.

Sue me. I take issue with your bullshit about conservative traits, but that's another post.

And idiot son wanted to watch over everyone, not the current president. That was my point.

And my other point is this admin is making distinctions.

Be as pissed as you want; I'm grateful we have a Dem in there, and he's trying to tow a line that isn't even fine, it's impossible.

The man isn't a magician, but he tries. That's better than what I railed against for so many years.

[Meldread]

68. That's incredibility short-sighted.

Even if you allowed the fact that this Administration would only use the new power for "good" purposes, you completely ignore the reality: there will be Administrations after this one. You cannot therefore guarantee that future Administrations will use the new power in good faith, and in fact virtually guarantee that somewhere along the line the power WILL be abused by someone, somewhere.

This is why there are checks and balances in our government, and why if the FBI wishes to obtain this information, they should get a court-issued warrant in which they can demonstrate probable cause. This act by the Obama Administration is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

[defendandprotect]

197. +1000% --

:)

[Cleobulus]

87. Unless you think the Democrats are going to be in office indefinately...

you are being extremely stupid, the biggest problem is when a Republican President, or even an assholish Democratic president is elected and abuses these powers that the Executive branch shouldn't have in the first place.

[Sherman A1]

113. +1000

I see absolutely NO good coming from this.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[HALO141]

169. Wrong is wrong

no matter who's doing it. Just because the current dufus-in-chief is a dem doesn't make him AUTOMATICALLY right or above reproach. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference which party has the White House, intelligence communities will gather every bit of information they can get their fingers on. It was wrong when bush did it, it's still wrong and to expand the effort is EVEN MORE WRONG! You should expect and demand better from your government.

[defendandprotect]

199. +1000%

[dionysus]

135. there you go, calling other dems conservative again...

:eyes:

[OnyxCollie]

141. There you go, acting like conservatives again...

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.

Frenkel-Brunswik (1949, 1951) developed further the theory of
ambiguity intolerance and elaborated the antecedent conditions of
this psychological disposition and its manifold consequences. At
the time, ambiguity intolerance was viewed in Freudian terms as
stemming from an underlying emotional conflict involving feelings
of hostility directed at one’s parents combined with idealization
tendencies. Although stable individual differences in the intolerance
of ambiguity have been observed across many
generations of researchers and participants, theoretical explanations
have changed somewhat. Anticipating current perspectives
on uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001; Sorrentino & Roney,
2000; Wilson, 1973b), Budner (1962), for example, defined intolerance
of ambiguity as “the tendency to perceive ambiguous
situations as sources of threat” (p. 29).

Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational
tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people
to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to
impose simplistic cliche´s and stereotypes. In a review of research
on ambiguity intolerance, Furnham and Ribchester (1995) provided
the following list of consequences of this tendency:

Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early selection
and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous
situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in
the same person, acceptance of attitude statements representing a
rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid dichotomizing
into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining closed
to familiar characteristics of stimuli. (p. 180) (p. 346).

[dionysus]

143. rather weak sauce. no one is arguing that. you just like to call dems who don't agree with you cons.

:rofl:

[OnyxCollie]

146. What a clever retort.

How do you cite the smilie?

Edit to add: "no one is arguing that."

I'm arguing that.

[awoke_in_2003]

179. so you agree...

that stuff like this is only wrong when a republican is president? If Obama doesn't want to be compared to Bush, he should stop acting like him.

[dionysus]

180. i never said anything like that. that wasn't even what i was talking about.

putting words in mouth fail.

[No Elephants]

40. Yes. We know about both.

[fishwax]

43. this administration wouldn't be the only one with such authority

[OnyxCollie]

52. "So do we actually know about either?"

If you are willing to step outside your bubble, read the opinions of Judges Anna Diggs Taylor and Vaughn Walker.

ACLU v. NSA Federal Court Decision
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/iaclu-v-nsai-federal-court-decision

Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html?_r=1&ref=vaughn_r_walker

[caseymoz]

58. I think the constitution applies no matter who's in office.

We should never give this administration powers we wouldn't want Bush to have had.

The other thing is, Obama has ordered the assassination of an American citizen. I don't know it's advisable to feel better about him than with Bush at this point.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

236. Got a little carried away with yourself didn't you there buster?

[OnyxCollie]

65. FISA, Telecommunication Companies & the Bush Administration

FISA, Telecommunication Companies & the Bush Administration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3487945&mesg_id=3487945

[cstanleytech]

18. Exactly, if they want to this it needs a heck of alot of oversight

so its not abused because if there isnt any oversight we all know its bound to be abused eventually by the FBI.

[HALO141]

166. It should be obvious by now

that there is no oversight.

[FreepFryer]

7. 'deeming' is statism for 'establishing probable cause that'

I just don't see why the Constitution needs to be shredded bit by bit.

[babylonsister]

23. I don't understand; if someone is a viable threat, how is that

shredding the Constitution?

The guy caught in NYC over the holidays; should the gov't not have had access to what he was up to?

As for me, I'm not a threat. I don't want to be investigated and would be pissed.

Idiot son wanted the right to investigate anyone vs. people who might have a reason to be suspect.

[No Elephants]

27. Where did you see "viable threat' language? I did not see that in the standard being proposed.

It's shredding the Constitution because it's a warrantless search and "deem relevant" is a bs standard.

FISA courts were created for this purpose. they are available 245/7. The warrant can even be obtained after the fact. And FISA courts almost never refuse a warrant. Among many thousands of requests, you can count refusals from a FISA court on one hand, meaning they likely apply a lower standard than say, a NYC policeman must meet to get a warrant re: a drug dealer. So, when government doesn't even want to go to a FISA court, citizens need to at least ask why.

[mbperrin]

29. Thank you! I'm actually against the FISA courts, but your point is

100% valid. If they think FISA won't rubberstamp it, it stinks on ice, to coin a phrase. ;)

[babylonsister]

33. You're right, I assumed, and we know what that amounts to.

this I deemed as a viable threat, silly me. I just thank goodness it's even being defined vs. anyone and all who live here, no recourse. Isn't that what idiot son did?

"if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation."

If there's a reason to investigate someone, I'm okay with that. I didn't/don't like the idea of the gov't doing it because they can.
I think that's the difference.

[OnyxCollie]

56. "If there's a reason to investigate someone, I'm okay with that."

During Chimpy's reign, Democrats in close elections were investigated. Do you think a FBI investigation of a candidate right before an election might have an effect on the vote?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8807073#8809373
Conversely, of the U.S. Attorneys who were not fired, there were the “…80-85 percent, I would guess, who are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.” (Sampson, 2005, p. 1), who have been the subject of allegations of political prosecutions. A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops” (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).

Shields, D.C. & Cragan, J.F. (2007). The political profiling of elected Democratic officials: When rhetorical vision participation runs amok. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from Epluribusmedia Web site: http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

That's why the US Attorney scandal was so significant. BTW, those US Attorneys are still there. Obama must like them; They serve at the pleasure of the President.

[Enthusiast]

121. Thank you, OnyxCollie!

Excellent post.

[No Elephants]

62. Again, you are rewording, even as you quote

"if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation."

That is the standard, which is NOT the same as no one being investigated unless there's a reason to investigate them, which is how you reworded:

"If there's a reason to investigate someone, I'm okay with that."

And no offense, but you questioned whether "we" know anything about either judicial oversight OR the Constitution. That being the case, why would your being O.K with this be at all persuasive?

And you have yet to say anything about why government has any reason whatever to abandon FISA court approval, after all these years. (Reply # 27)

And, no, AFAIK, idiot son did not do more than this contemplates. Again, the OP says more than once that this goes beyond anything done before. If you have a link that supports your claim about Bushco, though, go ahead and provide it.

[obxhead]

147. Yes it is being clearly defined now.

If they want to look, they can without asking anyone.

Just a claim of "we think he's up to no good" is NOT good enough.

Guess we don't need that silly old right to privacy anymore do we. Not like it's a right our forefathers thought so highly of or anything. :eyes:

[OnyxCollie]

42. "I don't understand; if someone is a viable threat, how is that

shredding the Constitution? ... As for me, I'm not a threat."

During Chimpy's reign, conservatives excused the domestic wiretapping by saying, "They're spying on terrorists. If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about."

Congratulations. You're three for three.

[babylonsister]

48. WHAT?

Chimpy went after EVERYONE, not just viable threats; that is what I opposed. And had conversations with friends about.

I still oppose it; you're saying the gov't shouldn't be able to investigate viable threats?

I guess the word 'viable' is up for grabs. What is viable?

[MrMickeysMom]

127. Indeed...

What is 'viable'?

Is it my internet history (I use Safari 5.0, so I think I have great security, but I'm not THAT naive).

What if my history shows DU linked to WikiLeak government website, then, trying to make sense of some comments there, I find myself examining some hate sites...

Am I up for grabs?

[obxhead]

148. This is an EXPANSION of the chimps policy.

How hard is that to get.

If that policy was bad and we are expanding it, how does that now make the policy a good policy.

ffs.

[defendandprotect]

200. ... because it makes us all guilty, it makes us all a "threat" . . .

You're arguing for an eventual locking up of the entire population because some may

be an actual threat!

[No Elephants]

25. "Deem" is legalese for "anything goes."

[Lance_Boyle]

152. then why not get a warrant? even a RETROACTIVE FISA warrant?

I'm amazed the some DUers are suckered into this. When Bush wanted it, we saw the evil. Now that Obama wants it, suddenly everything's hunky dory? Fuck that nonsense. What was bad under their bastard is bad under ours, too.

[brentspeak]

22. Oh, is that all? Obviously, we can trust the FBI and the federal government not to abuse their power

[babylonsister]

24. Get lost. At some point, we have to trust someone. Or move.

Where are you going? :D

Stop trying to stir up shit; I'm trying to understand it.

[No Elephants]

28. I trust the rule of law we've been under since 1789. At some point, so should our government.

[babylonsister]

31. So we should follow the rule of law from 1789?

Don't you think, given it is now 2010, stuff has happened, that we might want to modify our opinion?


I do.

[pschoeb]

44. So are you saying the Constitution is just a piece of paper?

nt

[babylonsister]

49. LOL! yes, that's what I'm saying. It sucks, pass it on.

:eyes:

[pschoeb]

53. It's really the only way I can read your statement

"So we should follow the rule of law from 1789?"

Which is of course the Constitution

Which you then go on to describe as old hat

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

These Warrants were issued by an independent judiciary

Are you saying that Amendment should not be followed, because there is no need for any changes if you agree with the above amendment, as Warrants can be gotten even by regular police for this information if they can show an independent judge they need it.

Do you think the post office should keep track of all addresses we send mail to and all addresses we receive mail from, and then hand this information over if the FBI say they have a suspicion about some crime without warrant?

Do you think the library and bookstores should track a history of every book you checked out, and hand that over to the FBI if they say they have a suspicion of some crime without a warrant?

There is no difference, except the Internet, to the above and what is being requested.

[boppers]

70. Your internet link, and traffic, is (most likely) not:

"their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

It is not yours. It's not your network (the rare exception: people who own their ISP, and the traffic doesn't go elsewhere).

This is why businesses can fire you for surfing porn, because once you're on somebody else's network, they are allowed to track and monitor what you're doing on *their* network.

[No Elephants]

72. Employer networks are different. I am not sending emails on a govt. network.

Employers track employees on the employer's own network. If you work for an employer and use its computers and its network, you expect the employer to be able to track you. If you work at home, on your time on your own computer, you don't expect the employer to be able to track the email you send your mom while you're working.

this is much more like the phone companies. Please see Reply 55.

[boppers]

77. If you are at home, on the Internet, it is not your network once it leaves the house.

The internet doesn't run under common-carrier (like phone networks) status, for many reasons, one of them being that phones cannot damage your property...

That being said, using your analogy, you may be using your own computer, but you're still using a separate businesses' machines to email your mom. Since they're a business, I'd expect (and require) them to track what the heck they're doing.

[No Elephants]

84. Um, I never once said a thing about "my" personal network.

Point was, people don't expect their employer to track their activities when they are not on the employer's time or property..

I also never said a thing about using an employer's machine to email my mom while I was working at home on my own computer.

And I did already say that people using an employer's computer would expect the employer to be able to track their activities on the employer's machine.

And employers were YOUR analogy. I was telling you why it did not apply to non-employer situations.

Jeez.

[boppers]

89. Employer: A business who is not you. ISP: A business who is not you.

If it's not your network, you don't get to make the rules.

Your employer, and ISP, get to make the rules.... because it's not your equipment.

It doesn't matter if you "hired" one, or "were hired" by the other.

Not your equipment, therefore, not your rules.

[No Elephants]

93. Yes, but the ISP and the government are not the same thing. You're conflating.

the issue is not whether my ISP has a right to a record of what I email. the issue is whether the government should be able to compel the ISP to turn over my info without getting a warrant.

Eta. That's why my prior post specified that I am not using a government network to email and also why I specified employees don't expect an employer to track an email they make from home via the employee's own equipment and the employee's ISP.

[boppers]

95. Good point, but mostly moot.

Most ISP's give it away, to avoid costlier measures.

[No Elephants]

100. Not moot at all. the govt's right to get this info via NSL, w/o warrant, is the very issue of the OP

And, as you yourself pointed out whether info obtained with neither consent nor warrant will withstand a fourth amendment challenge. If it were moot, this thread would have no posts, or maybe one.

[Dragonfli]

209. By that logic Fedex has every right to read and copy legal documents I send via FedEx

I disagree.

My landlord owns the mailbox where my mail is delivered, it is still illegal for him to open my mail.

Those examples should help clarify why some (myself included) will never believe that privacy goes out the window just because you use some sort of carrier service to deliver your physical mail and packages or your electronic mail and documents.

It is a bit foolish though as hackers can and do illegally read others personal documents that are sent on unsecured networks. They are criminals that one must defend against, should our government also act criminally and be protected against? I just personally hold the opinion they should not behave as hackers do forcing me to try to protect myself from them.

[OnyxCollie]

75. "Your internet link, and traffic, is (most likely) not:"

Your post is (most likely) absolutely wrong.

From Katz v United States, 389 U.S. 347

Because of the misleading way the issues have been formulated, the parties have attached great significance to the characterization of the telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his calls. The petitioner has strenuously argued that the booth was a "constitutionally protected area." The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given "area," viewed in the abstract, is "constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. See Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253; Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733.

The Government stresses the fact that the telephone booth from which the petitioner made his calls was constructed partly of glass, so that he was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye -- it was the uninvited ear. He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls from a place where he might be seen. No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world. To read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication.

The Government contends, however, that the activities of its agents in this case should not be tested by Fourth Amendment requirements, for the surveillance technique they employed involved no physical penetration of the telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his calls. It is true that the absence of such penetration was at one time thought to foreclose further Fourth Amendment inquiry, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 457, 464, 466; Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 134-136, for that Amendment was thought to limit only searches and seizures of tangible property. But "he premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited." Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 304. Thus, although a closely divided Court supposed in Olmstead that surveillance without any trespass and without the seizure of any material object fell outside the ambit of the Constitution, we have since departed from the narrow view on which that decision rested. Indeed, we have expressly held that the Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements, overheard without any "technical trespass under . . . local property law." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511. Once this much is acknowledged, and once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people -- and not simply "areas" -- against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.

We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the "trespass" doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.

Blah, blah, argumentative fallacy
Blah, blah, obfuscate
Blah, blah, defer to authority

(Collect $.10)

[boppers]

82. Analog phones: not computer network communication.

Very different things, not even close. You're comparing skateboards and cars (both have four wheels, and help people travel, right?).

That being said, are you fundamentally arguing that the police cannot read a death threat left inside of a public business, without a warrant? It seems you are.

After all, if you are sending non-private messages, you *aren't* in a phone booth, you're sitting in another person's business, leaving post-its of death threats in their business.

If you take no measures to ensure your privacy, and publicly blast out traffic with no expectation of privacy, ....what do you expect?

[No Elephants]

88. Did you read the part of the court opinion that the poster bolded?

It does not turn on specific technology. It turns on what a person sought to keep private by entering the phone booth. In that case, whether the phone booth was made of mirrors or had visible microphones is more relevant than whether the phone was analog.

[boppers]

92. Oh yes, I read that.

Most people don't bother to take the most minimal steps to enter into private communication over the internet.

It's a bit like a person who is screaming death threats, over a cell phone, in a public park, is claiming he was "illegally tapped" if his vocal/radio broadcast was noticed by others.

"I was using a phone" is not a defense in such a situation.

On the internet, most folks don't even try (or know how) to keep things private, perhaps?

[No Elephants]

103. Nah. Emailing from my own computer in my own home is nothing like screaming in a public

park. It's much more like writing a letter. Maybe machines can read thru the envelope. Maybe the envelope can easily be opened and re-sealed, but I still don't expect government to use it against me in court

"On the internet, most folks don't even try (or know how) to keep things private, perhaps?"

Maybe MOST don't even know their internet meanderings and emails need any steps to keep them private. I know 80 year olds who learned at a library or senior housing lounge to email to communicate with distant relatives. I'd bet any money they have no clue. And that goes to expectations of privacy.

[boppers]

214. Postcard is perhaps a more functional analogy.

The "envelope" in an email stream (and that is the accurate *term* to use, oddly enough) is separate from the content, but unless you've done something to encrypt the content, email is no more private than a postcard, in that anybody handling it does not need to do anything additional to read the contents.

[OnyxCollie]

90. More argumentative fallacies.

"That being said, are you fundamentally arguing that the police cannot read a death threat left inside of a public business, without a warrant? It seems you are."

Nope. You are.

More Bopper bullshit. But, hey. It's a living, right?

[boppers]

96. What's the "You are!" argument fallacy?

I forget.

[OnyxCollie]

97. You mean it's not in your little Rolodex

of argumentative fallacies you consult whenever you need to admonish others for not deferring to authority? For shame, Boppers.

Your work skills are as sloppy as your logic.

[boppers]

101. I figured you, of all people, would have it handy.

I guess I failed to anticipate the result.

[OnyxCollie]

102. Yes, you fail.

No surprises there.

[No Elephants]

104. Maybe it's along the lines of one of these:

Building one or more straw men;

Using analogies that aren't really analogous;

Moving the goalpost after a poster has fully answered, or even refuted, your prior post;

Changing the subject after a poster has fully answered, or even refuted, your prior post;

Putting words in another's poster's post or pretending you're proving or teaching something that is already in the other poster's post and, by the same token...

Ignoring things in a post for which you have no answer at all.

Just a wild guess.

[pschoeb]

78. This is about Email, which is covered under Stored Communications Act

under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Which requires a special court order, generally called a D order, because of the subsection of this act it falls under, to get a list of email addresses received or sent, if the isp logs this. This is for publicly offered email services of your isp.

They can provide your ip address and some other info with only a subpoena, but things pertaining to publicly offered email service are stricter.

Also in the case of subpoena and D orders, both require giving you notice, though the notice is often delayed a little bit. Full search Warrants require no notice, so it's also important to know if these new proposed changes would also get rid of notice. Often times the police want a search warrant, because they do not want notice to be given to the person for obvious reasons, and so do the extra work this takes over a D order.

[HALO141]

183. By that logic they wouldn't need a warrant to tap your phone, either.

Just as long as they tied into your line outside of your house.


Is that really the way you think it should be?



REALLY!?


It's been said before by others in this very thread - "If it was bad when bush did it then it's bad when Obama does it." Keep in mind that any power you cede to a Dem. administration will, at some point, be in the hands of a Repub. administration. How will you feel about it then?

[No Elephants]

71. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction, IMO:

Ratifying the Constitution in 1789 represented our decision to be a society governed by laws, to live under the rule of law. The same was true of the Articles of Confederation. Each document was law. However, neither document is "the rule of law." We're the only society to be governed by our Constitution. Many societies have been, and are, governed by the rule of law.

[No Elephants]

67. Um, that IS what your post to me amounted to.

the Constitution was ratified in 1789. As best I could understand your post, you said we should not be living under 1789 law (which, again, is different from the rule of law).

[No Elephants]

66. As a reply to my post, your post makes no sense. Do you understand

that living under the rule of law since 1789 has absolutely nothing to do with any specific statute, enacted in 1789 or in 2010 (or in any year in between)?

[frylock]

170. bush made that same argument..

keep digging. this is really quite fascinating.

[Occulus]

177. It appears that you UNDERSTAND it perfectly well

and are only here to JUSTIFY it.

[defendandprotect]

203. We trusted Democrats in '06 . . . and Obama in 2008 . . . how's that working out?

Nancy Pelosi the morning after the '06 election - on video --

"DEMOCRATS WERE ELECTED TO END THE WAR!" --


And, as far as this new "ease" is concerned, had Bush done it, we'd all be furious.

No less so now because Obama is doing it --

[inna]

240. "Get lost"?? "Stop trying to stir up shit"?? WTF is wrong with you??

Absolutely sickened by your disgusting comments in this thread.

:puke:

[OnyxCollie]

37. "'if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.'

I have no problem with this. To do it to anyone for no reason, I have a problem with that."

So, you would rather bypass an impartial judiciary and allow the agent to decide for himself.

Deferring to authority is another conservative trait. You're on a roll. Go for the hat trick.

[ibegurpard]

39. "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

right?
right?
fucking pathetic

[Iowa]

45. Pathetic.

[Enthusiast]

119. They can deem anything relevant

based on the individual's political affiliations, union membership or anything.

Babylonsister, you speak as if there have been no recent examples of abuse. Our founding fathers felt that freedom from unreasonable search and seizure was a sacred and necessary element of our democracy.

Any search should only be allowed as determined by a court of law.

[unapatriciated]

153. This is just abuse waiting to happen.

maybe you should have a problem with this.

[Hydra]

172. They can get a warrent if they have probable cause

That didn't used to be a problem until Bush decided he needed to datamine everything we were doing.

4th amendment is there for a reason.

[Smashcut]

187. "I have no problem with this"

Of course you don't. :eyes:

[grahamhgreen]

201. "If the agents deem" is directly contradictory to "Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable

"Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There is no warrant here - the agent can just do what he wants, and they have a pattern and practice of doing so.

[superconnected]

208. I'm having a problem seeing the difference.

[Mojorabbit]

248. If they have suspicions

they ought to go to court first for approval. I have a big problem with them deciding on their own with no oversight to go through personal info but I am funny like that.

[laughingliberal]

4. *&^%)*& nm

[Richard Steele]

8. OBAMA: A kinder, gentler B*sh Administration. It's fucking disgusting. nm

[Iowa]

46. +1

[avaistheone1]

81. +1,000

Little wonder Obama could not prosecute Bush/Cheney. Obama is proving he is operating too much like them.

[GodlessBiker]

108. +10,000. Power corrupts.

[golddigger]

134. I'm sad to say, you're correct.

[defendandprotect]

204. +1000% ..... and much ahead of us yet .. . . Obama vs Social Security/Medicare . . .!!!

Guess we thought THAT was all over when we elected Obama in 2008!!

:crazy:

:thumbsdown:

[inna]

243. disgusting beyond words.

another betrayal from this admin.

[CreekDog]

9. Constitutional scholar

or something. :eyes:

[williesgirl]

10. This is bullshit! Let them go to FISA court, but not just cause they "deem" it necessary.

Fuck this - this is NOT what I worked so hard and gave money I didn't have to elect a new President and Administration. It's shit like this that makes me believe more and more that there's very little difference in either party once they're elected. rec'd

[defendandprotect]

11. Isn't this something that Bush would have done . . .???? Didn't we have an election???

FBI couldn't see gun owner records . . . but they can snoop on internet posters?

[QC]

139. Yes, but it was bad when Bush did it. It's OK when our guy does it, though. n/t

[defendandprotect]

189. Right . . . "bad when Bush does it/OK when our guy does it" ..!!

That's sadly the common take on this now -- more and more it adds up that way!

:)

[defendandprotect]

12. K&R -- and keep this kicked -- shameful!!

[Canuckistanian]

13. Add ths to your "Obama follows Bush" Google searches

It'll probably show up in about two days.

[Solly Mack]

14. K&R

[havocmom]

15. Seems the only real change has been hope of change

dashed on the reality of DEM or GOP: SSDD

[TBF]

17. The Palmer Raids also occurred under a democratic administration...

that is why some of us get nervous when we hear vague phrases like "if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

[msongs]

20. internet should not be tracked at all without a warrant nt

[Tempest]

21. Here's one reason not to give the FBI more power

The FBI is in charge of the no-fly list.



A 29-year-old U.S. citizen and Army veteran sits in a bare apartment in a poor part of the Colombian capital, Bogota. He wants to come home, but he can't. He thinks it's because he's on the federal government's "no-fly list."

Raymond Earl Knaeble is one of an unknown number of Americans stranded overseas. They can't fly home, but no one will tell them why.

In Knaeble's case, he went to the airport in Bogota on March 14 to board a plane for Miami, Florida. "I had a job offered to me and one of the requirements to secure the job was that I had to take a medical exam. It was scheduled for March 16 in the U.S.," Knaeble said.

When he arrived at the gate, however, an airline official denied him a boarding pass. He was instructed to contact the U.S. Embassy in Bogota. "They told me I couldn't fly with the airline, with any airline," he said. "My heart sank. They didn't give me a reason why. I've been stuck in Colombia without any explanation."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/no.fly.trap/index.html

[No Elephants]

30. The same no fly list that gave Sen. Ted Kennedy so much trouble?

[Tempest]

174. The same list that has four, five and six year old children on it

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10725741/

boingboing.net/2008/01/10/another-fiveyearold.html

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-westlake-6yrold-no-fly-list-help,0,4737344.story

[babylonsister]

26. LOL. I'm so glad to be on DU and read all of these profound

statements. It's a real eye-opener.

Thank you for being part of the folks under this vast umbrella; I am, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

138. Your posts on this thread have been disgusting to read

The 'lol' is also pathetic. A time and a place for everything. And this is not the sort of issue that most Americans laugh out loud at others about. You title your post 'Laugh out Loud'. Pitiful.

[Occulus]

182. She kind of 'exposed' herself on this one, didn't she? n/t

[inna]

244. disgusting to boot. sickening. nt

[Occulus]

181. .

oops

[bring_em_home_bush]

184. it's a real eye-opener how disappointing your posts have become

Never in a million years would you have supported this proposal when Chimpy was sitting in the Oval Office.

[Downwinder]

32. With each freedom we give up, the terrorists are that much

closer to winning.

[MilesColtrane]

35. The FBI wants that information?

Fuck that!

That would mean that the NSA would have to share.

[boppers]

69. They already have that information.

They want it to be unchallengeable in court.

[No Elephants]

74. If they already have it, let them go to a FISA court for approval.

[boppers]

86. FISA does not apply.

Hint: FI (in FISA) stands for what, exactly?

How does it apply to domestic ISP's being asked for business records?

[No Elephants]

91. So let them get approval from a court that is NOT a Fisa court, the salient issue being

court approval or no court approval, not which specific court.

[boppers]

99. Why should a private business need approval to disclose logs?

Should your freedom of speech be dependent on a court order?

(This is a VERY loaded question, BTW)

It seems very simple, but... hm. Should internet usage be as protected as health records?

[No Elephants]

107. Change the subject much?

[boppers]

216. Health records, by law, have greater protection.

The point is that if we want greater protection for certain information that we disclose to a third party, by default, it is *not* as protected.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act

For prior efforts to create a legal framework for making email "private".

[OnyxCollie]

94. Wrong again.

Following the revelation by the Church Committee of serious abuses of electronic surveillance for national security purposes, the Senate Judiciary Committee enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). The bill was “designed … to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it.” (Bazan & Elsea, 2006).. The Senate Judiciary Committee made clear the intent of Congress to accommodate the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power:

The basis for this legislation is the understanding – concurred in by the Attorney General – that even if the President has the “inherent” constitutional power to authorize warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the exercise of this authority by legislating a reasonable warrant procedure governing foreign intelligence surveillance. (Bazan & Elsea, 2006).

Section 2511 of Title III was changed, removing the section pertaining to surveillance executed according to the “constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack” and inserted in its stead § 2511(2)(f), which made Title III and FISA the exclusive means to authorize electronic surveillance within the United States (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). This was done to “put[] to rest the notion that Congress recognizes an inherent Presidential power to conduct such surveillances in the United States outside of the procedures contained in chapters 119 and 120 .” (Bazan & Elsea, 2006, quoted from S. Rep. No. 95-604(I), at 63 (1978)).

While Title III dealt with electronic surveillance from a law enforcement standpoint, requiring a more stringent standard to meet Fourth Amendment guaranties, i.e. a showing of probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, the FISA standard is lower, requiring a showing of probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). This requirement in FISA was removed briefly by the USA PATRIOT Act following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Bazan & Elsea, 2006).

[No Elephants]

106. P.S. What "FI" stands for is irrelevant.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, enacted October 25, 1978, 50 U.S.C. ch.36, S. 1566) is an Act of Congress which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).<1>


<snip>

The Act was amended in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Even if that were not so, an FBI agent investigating almost any crime, esp. domestic terrorism, might "deem" info about foreign terrorists "relevant."

The only real FISA issue is how the FISA Act overlaps and/or interfaces with the Stored Communications Act mentioned to you by, I think, pschoeb.

[boppers]

213. A bit about SCA...

"Furthermore, users generally entrust the security of online information to a third party, an ISP. In many cases, Fourth Amendment doctrine has held that, in so doing, users relinquish any expectation of privacy. The "third party doctrine" holds "…that knowingly revealing information to a third party relinquishes Fourth Amendment protection in that information.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act

[Raineyb]

123. Then they should get a warrant. It is not acceptable for them to seek

to find ways to spy on the citizenry without a warrant. And it is NOT okay because it's a Democrat asking for this ability.

This is NOT the change I voted for.

[closeupready]

112. This right here is the money shot, thank you.

+1000 There are few, if any, activities which the government doesn't already have someone monitoring. What it doesn't have is permission to present all of it, during prosecutions, as evidence.

[mike r]

38. Hey, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

57. Exactly what the Bushbots said when Bush was in office. And, in fairness,

probably what they'd say today.

[Ross K]

47. K&R

Deserves the front page!

[alp227]

50. Internet privacy: Stolen by both corporations and government, also close bedfellas. n/t

[SoapBox]

51. Oh no, no, no, no...

No...there is MORE than enough Big Brother stuff.

...gett'n more creepy by the day.

[No Elephants]

55. Obama: "I'll fight to strip telecom immunity from FISA....

Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

" does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-4200105-502163.html


The dateline on that story is June 21, 2008. A couple of weeks later.....



July 10, 2008 Obama joins fellow Senators in passing new wiretap measure.

"But Obama and his allies, including Senate intelligence Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), countered that FISA and its secret courts would now have the final say on government spying. They pointed to a new "exclusivity" provision as a critical addition guaranteeing that no president could evade court authority in ordering wiretaps, overriding Bush's claim that a wartime president holds the ultimate authority."

<snip>

"Obama's GOP opponents saw a more calculated motive, aimed at sharpening the Democrat's appeal to centrist voters in general-election battleground states. Hours before the vote, the Republican National Committee circulated an Obama statement dated Dec. 17, 2007, asserting that he "unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies," and would support a filibuster to stop the bill from passing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901780.html

Didn't he also say he'd fix FISA after he got elected, then didn't?

Greenwald (Constitutional lawyer) on FISA
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/16/nsa

[avaistheone1]

79. Snap!

You are correct. This decision does harken back to Obama's flip flop on telecom immunity.

[avaistheone1]

80. This move by Obama is to the right of Bush.

Even Bush would not have dared to do this.

It is maddening to experience the hope and change candidate, take away so many of our rights and freedoms.

:thumbsdown:

[defendandprotect]

206. How else could it have been done . . . ???

There's an old saying --

"You can only really be betrayed by those closest to you" --

:eyes:

[avaistheone1]

253. I suppose so

And it only can be done drip by drip - just the way it is unfolding.

To do otherwise might wakeup a few too many people up. There might be an effective resistance in that case.

[defendandprotect]

255. Don't know that anyone covered this . . .

Olberman, Maddow, Schultz -- Hartmann --

only can tune in to parts of the shows --

C-span by the way had the "Cat Food Panel" on --

so much is done in backrooms now again, however -- who knows what we'll hear ???

:)

[defendandprotect]

205. Thanks, No Elephants . . . saved that info --

[scentopine]

247. Great post! -nt

[OnyxCollie]

59. K&R. nt

[jgraz]

60. And the hits just keep on comin

:puke:

[defendandprotect]

207. The "Shock & Awe" see saw --

[boppers]

61. LOL, this is funny, if delusional

Apparently people don't realized that ISP's basically already *sell* this information to any entity willing to fill out a form.

"Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records"

Complete and utter bullshit, written by somebody who knows very little about the industry. Obviously.

Here's how it works: "They" (insert whatever agency you want) contact your ISP. Your ISP sends them the standard forms (unless they already have them, most do). They pay the ISP to put a trap on *their private network*, and also pay for any media needed for data collection.

The private network part is critical in understanding why this is totally legal.... it's not *your* network, it's *their* network, and they are within their rights to collect *everything* that transits across it.

[No Elephants]

76. There's a difference between what you're talking about and knowing

every email I send, the date and time I sent it and to where I sent it. There is also a difference between someone who wants my browsing info to sell me something and someone who wants to put me or someone I emailed behind bars.

And, yes, ISPs have been resisting, although given the telephone companies, I don't trust their resistance.

[boppers]

85. grep -R "noelephants" /var/log/sendmail* > output.log

It's that simple, really. For extra jollies, we can pull queue records.

We've (SysAdmin folk) been doing this work since the 1960's.

Most ISP's don't bother resisting, I suggest finding a local SAGE shop, if you can.

http://www.sage.org/ethics/

[No Elephants]

105. LOL. That has absolutely nothing to do with Reply 76., I did not ask how to retreive the info.

Or how hard or easy retreiving it might by or how long sysadmins have been doing it. Or what I should do.

[Meldread]

63. This is a clear violation of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Forth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't care if a million lives will be saved by this act. Once you start giving up freedom it's nearly impossible to get it back. Of course, Conservatives who can't seem to read past the Second Amendment will just love this move. Anything that strengthens big brother. At least the ACLU and Libertarians will hate the move, it's unfortunate that there are some Authoritarian Liberals who, like the Conservatives, will praise the move.

This is extremely dangerous and is one area where I'm willing to vote Obama out of office for - the government is growing too powerful and is violating our civil liberties.

[defendandprotect]

190. Private interests, as near as I recall, are LEASED or PERMITTED use of public airwaves ...

granted the corrupt and criminal FCC has been selling us out as fast as

possible -- but that's still the basis of all of this --

It's a "people's" government and we get to decide what happens --

Simple as that --

This is another area where corrupt government is counting on the willingness

of frightened citizens to surrender all of their freedoms.




:)

[BootinUp]

227. The smiley face at the end of all your posts

gives them a strange effect since almost all your posts I have seen have been pretty frightening takes on our situation. Just to let you know.

:)

[defendandprotect]

254. Interesting take --

How do you not understand that the :) is for the poster I'm responding to -- ?

And quite aside from the "frightening" comments I may be making on our situation . . . ?


And -- while I doubt you've read "all" my posts -- thanks for reading any of them -!



:)

[Recursion]

211. Who owns the cables we send data through, though?

It's not exactly like the airwaves.

And as much as this sucks, organized crime is already snooping on everything you do online, which is why everyone should use encryption at every opportunity, and which point this whole issue becomes moot.

[Bryn]

64. Yikes!

[ProudDad]

73. Business as usual in the USAmerikan Empire (n/t)

[EFerrari]

83. This is the same FBI whose agents are cheating on their tests

regarding surveillance rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4482252

Yeah, let's leave up to their judgment.

[autorank]

98. This is illegal k*r

More bull shit.

[SILVER__FOX52]

109. Obama's propensity to continue and in fact,

expand, the inherent violations of our constitutional right to privacy in the patriot act, etc, is stunning to me.

[No Elephants]

110. What is the FBI's track record re: abusing National Security Letters?

If you can lawfully get info on the basis of a National Security Letter, of course no warrant (or judicial oversight) occurs. ary.

So, very relevant to Obama's current proposal is whether the FBI abuses NSL's. Guess what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

[arundhatiroyfan]

111. K&R nt.

[Xicano]

114. So Now Obama Joins the Crowd Who Thinks The Constitution is "Just a Gawd Damned Piece of Paper."

:banghead:

[DailyGrind51]

115. How can the Administration defend this?

[AngryOldDem]

118. Isn't this the exact same shit that Bush was pulling?

I know it's been said, and I know it's trite, and I know that SOME good at SOME time will come from all of this if I'm only willing to WAIT and BE PATIENT, but...

I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS SHIT.

[obxhead]

158. Not quite. It's an expansion on an already horribly bad Bush

Policy.

In my eyes that makes it even worse than that horribly bad Bush policy.

[AngryOldDem]

173. Regardless.

I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS SHIT.

Every day I feel more and more duped, like a dumbassed victim of a bait and switch.

I'm trying to maintain my support of Obama. But every day I'm closer to the deal-breaking point. But what is the alternative?????

[obxhead]

176. There is no alternative.

We've grown to the point where there isn't even a "lesser of 2 evils" imo.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. don't worry the fbi would never misuse this

so it is no big deal
plus bad guys scary furrin tersts etc

[tomp]

122. obama = fail.

don't worry, internet service providers will eventually turn over the info and then be granted retroactive immunity by the chess player-in-chief.

[Fearless]

124. Iran much?

[Odin2005]

125. More creeping police state BS!

:grr:

[MrMickeysMom]

126. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," ...

For anyone who still is struggling with the notion that because it's the CURRENT administration versus the BUSH administration, Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority.

This little Bushie went to market right after he left that dastardly administration. You can easily understand this guy practices national security and surveillance law.

"And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

Here... let me burn your pom poms now.... :nuke:

[L0oniX]

129. I have a spare bedroom ...maybe they should just move in.

[defendandprotect]

192. Oh . . . thanks for the laugh . . . eases the pain of this stupidity . . .!!!

:)

[lib2DaBone]

130. Thanks Mr. Obama...

[Jefferson23]

131. No warrant equals rampant abuse. n/t

[lefty2000]

133. It's Not About Security

It's about power.

Terrorism is not a serious threat to the survival of the state. An occasional terrorist act is horrible for the individual targeted, but in fact it is just another hazard that we accept in our daily lives. There is no rational justification for expending the enormous national effort to combat a threat that is insignificant compared to other common dangers, for example auto accidents, drownings, and electrocution.

The perennial leading cause of violent death in America is suicide and it is the same in most of the world, by far outstripping the deaths resulting from terrorism by orders of magnitude.

Tyrants and dictators have always used a foreign threat to justify repressive measures. In our time, the foreign threat has disappeared, so our rulers must exaggerate the seriousness of a minor threat like terrorism, which is not new, into a threat to our national survival.

We are our own worst enemy (see Pogo).

[LaurenG]

136. Wow this is just awesome

open the door just a little wider and maybe after a republican admin or two we can all just have the government issue us our computers, passwords and phones.

[QC]

137. We really hated it when Bush did stuff like this.

But I'm sure we will soon be overrun with people telling us this is just great and it's for our own good and you never loved Obama anyway and....

[BootinUp]

226. .

not necessarily.

[Jefferson23]

140. Obama Administration Wants to Make Domestic Surveillance Power Grab

The White House wants to add just four words to the law that empowers the government to collect information on you w/o a warrant. But it would represent a huge expansion of the what the government could (legally) collect on you.

The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the “content” of e-mail or other Internet communication.But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Make no mistake. This is one of the most important pieces of civil liberties news in a long time. The Obama Administration is asking Congress to sanction the collection of internet records without a warrant–the kind of shit they used to do without a warrant, until people expressed their opposition.

But then Democrats took over and now they want legal sanction and now–Voila, a request that presumably provides cover.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/07/28/obama-administration-wants-to-make-domestic-surveillance-power-grab/

[City Lights]

142. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

:argh:

[Blue Owl]

149. WTF? I thought Dubya was voted out in 2008

:wtf:

[t0rnado]

151. Change?

This is no different from what Bush's administration repeatedly proposed. What the fuck happened to privacy in this country?

[X_Digger]

154. Thanks for the reminder. I needed to donate some more to the ACLU, EPIC, & EFF. n/t

[RoccoR5955]

155. It's not about privacy, or rights any more, it's a class war for sure.

The reason I say this, is because if you have money, you will surely be able to buy your way out of these sort of things. If you don't have insane amounts of money to pay liars, I mean lawyers, you will not.
This is like the song goes, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

It's about getting rid of the middle class, and that's all.

[Ticonderoga]

156. Doesn't come as

any big surprise. Just another "misstep" for Mr. One Termer.

[rateyes]

157. My God, we need protection from our protectors.

Where the hell did the United States of America go?

[Jefferson23]

160. Every 4 years it's up for sale in the General election. n/t

[BadgerKid]

159. Oh the irony: "lawyers" and "officials" are anonymous!

I'm not sure if they're giving us a heads-up or being hypocritical.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DallasNE]

163. I Find This Very Disturbing

If I inadvertently click on a link or click on a link that turns out to not be what I expect and that link is being monitored by the FBI then my name goes into their computer with my name possibly put on a no-fly list or worse. We know there will be abuse if this goes through because the FBI has a long history of abuse.

[Joanne98]

168. &^%$#@

[Desertrose]

175. WHAT?

I mean what the hell is going on here?!


Words fail me.

[Autumn Colors]

185. Framing .... always the framing .....

White House Proposal Would Ease FBI Access to Records of Internet Activity

Gee, can you tell which side of this the Post is on?

[defendandprotect]

191. "EASE" . . . Gold Star for OBSERVATION . . .

So much stuff is thrown at us every day that this stuff begins to go down

like a drop of rain --

Keep at it!!

:)

[dadzilla]

186. From freedom of association

To freedom to know who you associate with. Not welcome news.

[Kurovski]

188. Internet crime and fraud is growing. BushCo. all but ignored it

They were busy chasing online porn early on.

If not abused, it's a good thing. Of course, it will be abused sometime.

[BootinUp]

225. Let them get warrants I say. nt

[grahamhgreen]

195. He wants to see our info, but but does not want us to see the govt info about the war.

When we voted for transparency it was not for our transparency - it was for govt transparency.

Another troubling move.

[Recursion]

210. This is why you use encryption, brethren and sistren

Because no matter what the White House allows the FBI to do, the Russian Mob is already doing it.

[boppers]

218. +1

GPG/PGP FTW!

http://www.gnupg.org/

[humbled_opinion]

212. DANGER, DANGER, DANGER

Will Robinson.... Is Obama a fool? Imagine this kind of power in the hands of another Cheney, no wait lets let the government control everything yeah thats the ticket, then when Repukes get back in charge they will be tossing dissidents in the gulags that were created on the backs of the enabling Democrats...

I am seriously done with all this crap, there will never be true change until we have a true Progressive Party.

Signed,

Disillusioned former Democrat..

[treestar]

215. Sounds like a very detailed lawyer dispute over whether

certain information fits certain categories defined under some complex set of federal statutes.

Too boring for all the dramatics on display here.

[Uncle Joe]

223. Too complex for us to understand?

"The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, as the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication."

This may be boring to you now because your avatar is Vice-President and this gives you a feeling of security, but I'm sure you're aware times change.

Let's take a for instance, someone like Cheney, Nixon or Bush is President, someone like Jay Edgar Hoover is head of the FBI, they don't need a court order to invade the anonymity of any political opponent on the Internet and their web of friends, family and associates.

What could possibly go wrong?

[treestar]

229. It probably does take wading through pages of boring legal stuff

to figure out what the issue is here. And no doubt a lot of people could not understand it. They want to add those four words to the list of items. Another set of lawyers does not. Much ink will be spilled about whether those four letters fit the relevant legal category. Many cases will be cited and highly technical arguments made. In the end, the court will decide with a long opinion stating why the four words do or do not fall into the category.

Never fall for this kind of legal fear mongering on DU. It is always trumped up by someone who does not even see the legal issue in existence, let alone be able to argue for one side of it.

There's no reason to be offended by the concept of not understanding - I don't either but realize that in order to do so, I'd have to slog through all the legalese.

The government argues that such and such search is NOT against the Fourth Amendment and the lawyer for the defendant or other affected person argues that it IS. Whichever side convinces the judge will win. That is all that is ever going on here, not the dramatic attempt to stomp on our rights that is often hysterically portrayed.

[Uncle Joe]

232. You may only see this as a boring legalize argument, I see this as extremely invasive and

there is no upside, certainly not for privacy, or the First and Fourth Amendments.

This is ripe for abuse plain and simple and there is no logical reason as to why a judge can't rule on the merits of each case.

Don't be fooled, the Internet is not the same as the telephone, you don't instantaneously, speak to the entire world en mass re: your politics through the telephone.

Same as phone records?

The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.

There is no upside to this, when was the last time you saw the government argue for more freedom, privacy and liberty for the American People, it's virtually always one way and I believe it's done so to further corporate power.

They were already able to get four categories without judicial approval and that wasn't enough, it's just a matter of time before they come back and ask for more power without judicial approval, including the content of your e-mails.

Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in response to a national security letter.

But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. There is no reference to electronic communication transactional records.

[BootinUp]

224. Don't look to me to defend this one.

nope.

[waronbanks]

228. Now the Obama flip flop on FISA makes much more sense.

This government wants to shut down the net plain and simple. As a start they can put the fear of the state apparatus into anyone who dare speak words the administration finds criminal.

You may want to watch your criticism of BP, GE, Goldman Sachs...you get the picture. The Corporatists are in control and they do not like the serfs getting uppity. They will do whatever they have to do to keep that control.

I really didnt expect the "change" to mean further down the road to fascism...but thats what we got. Obama and his corporate overlords have fucked us over and over.

2006 and 2008 proved that elections dont mean shit. Nothing will change until we remove the corporation from politics and that aint happening anytime in our lifetimes. The great experiment that was America has failed.

[lonestarnot]

239. Sad isn't it. No matter who in the administration pushing this shit. I just don't believe

it's Obama and want to know precisely who is pushing it.

[Politicub]

231. :sigh: Of course it would

I'm getting so sick of seeing stuff like this nearly every day.

It gets old. I wish the admin would strengthen Internet user privacy, but of course it follows the same path as other admins of weakening it.

[bvar22]

233. Just firming up the Police State Powers...

...for the approaching day when the Working Class & Poor, Democrats & Republicans, realize we have much more in common with each other than we have with the Ruling Elite from either Party.

I'm surprised at the Long Term DUers in this thread who are working so hard to defend this abomination.
For some, its really true.
"Its OK when Obama does it".

[nutshell2002]

235. Relax...

probably just another one of those brilliant chess moves.

[dflprincess]

237. But, but Obama really is on our side

he wants to be progressive but the Blue Dogs in the Senate won't let him!

Oh wait, this is a move that can't be blamed on Congress. But I'm sure the spinning will be fascinating :popcorn:

[lonestarnot]

238. Who in the fucking administration? Who Hissyspit? Mr. President?

Got irritated with the Post link.

[inna]

241. K&R. Disturbing as hell.

[scentopine]

246. I guess he wisely decided not to disclose this when he addressed the netroots convention.

The great chess master at work.

[pleah]

249. Yet, another blow to freedom. :( n/t

[Danger Mouse]

250. Why is everybody upset about this?

I mean, if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?

Right?

Everybody?

:hide:

(I don't need to use :sarcasm:, do I?)

[Hydra]

251. You might want the tag

Much to my surprise and chagrin, some people can't be bothered to learn what's happening, and are counting on our leaders to behave themselves with all these shiny new powers.

I foresee that questioning authority will soon be an offense that gets you shot.

[dogday]

252. Change you can believe in, but I can't

:thumbsdown:

[area51]

256. You beat me to it. (n/t)

[krabigirl]

257. horrible...

[Autumn]

258. This is not acceptable.

Damn disgusting. This thread has really turned the lights on.