Outraged by US Government Spying on Americans?

As a quick note about using PGP. PGP can be configured to use several different ciphers, all (except single DES) are considered "safe." In the past, the FBI has (with a court order) slipped inside the domiciles of PGP using suspects to insert keyboard sniffers on machines which send and receive encrypted traffic. More information on various crypto related controversies at http://www.cryptonomicon.net. More info about configuring PGP at http://www.cryptorights.org.

We consider ourselves civil libertarians, as wary as anyone of government power. Which is why we're scratching our heads over the fear and loathing unleashed by the latest court ruling in favor of the Bush Administration's anti-terror efforts.

On Monday the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review agreed with Attorney General John Ashcroft that the law permits much more cooperation between the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors in ordering wiretaps of terror suspects. Somehow we thought this is exactly what everyone wanted, since "intelligence sharing" has been widely cited as one of the government's failures before 9/11. Bipartisan majorities in Congress passed the USA Patriot Act to allow just that.

But to hear the reaction to Monday's ruling, you'd think the KGB has been unleashed on Main Street. Ann Beeson of the ACLU says the judgment creates a "rubber stamp" for "intrusive surveillance warrants." And Michigan Democrat John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee declares that "piece by piece, this Administration is dismantling the basic rights afforded to every American under the Constitution."

This is all over the top, even for these folks. FBI agents will not suddenly be able to snoop into American bedrooms. U.S. officials who want a wiretap warrant under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will still have to convince a court that there is probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization. That standard has not been relaxed in the least, as the Court of Review noted in saying the wiretap practices are consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The real issue is simply the extent to which there can be information sharing between intelligence officials at the FBI and the criminal division at Justice. Under old Justice guidelines--an overreaction to the wiretapping scandals of the FBI's Hoover era--a third party had to be present whenever the two met to discuss a case. But that "chaperone" system proved unwieldy, and even before September 11 there were moves afoot to relax those rules.

Then in May the lower FISA court said such a change was not permissible. But on Monday the unanimous three-judge appellate Review Court disagreed, saying not only did the Patriot Act give Justice this right, it existed even under the original FISA statute. Moreover, the Review Court said that creating a "wall" of separation between intelligence and law enforcement officers made no sense because "the definition of an agent of a foreign power . . . is grounded on criminal conduct" such as "espionage, sabotage or terrorism."

Along the way, the review panel cited such liberal authorities as Democrats Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein about the purpose of the Patriot Act. Senator Feinstein: "The effect of this provision will be to make it easier for law enforcement to obtain a FISA search or surveillance warrant for those cases where the subject of the surveillance is both a potential source of valuable intelligence and the potential target of a criminal investigation."

Exhibit A in proving Ms. Feinstein's point is the case of "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui. FBI headquarters declined to seek a FISA warrant against him before 9/11 because it didn't think it had a strong enough case. Field agents were aware that terrorists might be looking into flight schools as Moussaoui had done, and they wanted to look at his computer but lacked solid information about his terror connections.

Every free society needs civil-libertarian watchdogs, but the problem with ours after 9/11 is that they've treated even the smallest change in intelligence procedures as the arrival of Big Brother. If they keep it up, no one will believe them when they're finally right.
____
No License to Spy
Civil liberties watchdogs are yapping over nothing.
http://www.opinionjournal.com
Sunday, November 24, 2002

Well, if it's nothing to worry about, then I'm sure you're not worried about PGP, either, which is the point of this discussion. Or were you just so overeager to yap about the Patriot Act, Mr. (LOL) 'supervisor', that you did not actually read the above article?

"U.S. officials who want a wiretap warrant under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will still have to convince a court that there is probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization"

-ah, the rub is in how the Long Arm of the Law defines "terrorist organization."

``-ah, the rub is in how the Long Arm of the Law defines "terrorist organization."´´

SEE:
http://www.rense.com/general17/fly.htm

Surveillance Camera Players

http://www.notbored.org/army-statement.html


Reclaim the Streets

http://www.urban75.com/Action/news137.html


etc.

http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1531

Right on! Thumbs up for the article!

If you're upset by the government "spying" on you, then you're probably doing something illegal.

Stop doing it.

Even thinking that the government cares enough about its citizens to spy on them individually, is paranoid. And even if the government had the resources and technology to do this, it doesn't have anybody who cares enough to put in the effort it would take to do it. You have to be a conspiracy buff to fall into that line of thinking.

Eric sez, "If you're upset by the government "spying" on
you, then you're probably doing something illegal."

you tell 'em Eric! Surveillace is good (and people
should stop calling it spying, being watched and
tracked by the government for protection is not the
same as spying), it stops evil-doers, so the more we
are watched over the better. We should all get implant
chips too, to help with the war effort and stop terror in i
its tracks.

Leslie, 46, said she was motivated by security
concerns. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks hit close to
home: Her family lives in South Florida, where
authorities say 14 of the 19 hijackers lived. Her office
is a block away from tabloid publisher American
Media, where a photo editor died after contracting
anthrax.

The world would be a safer place if authorities had a
tamper-proof way of identifying people, she said.

"I have nothing to hide, so I wouldn't mind having the
chip for verification," Leslie Jacobs said. "I already
have an ID card, so why not have a chip?"

EXCERPT:
________
"A reluctant supporter of the Pentagon's plans is Frank Gaffney, a former assistant defence secretary.

He says that it would only take one more terrorist attack and public support is assured.

"At that point there will not only be a willingness to submit to those sorts of infringement but a demand that they be infringed upon in the hope of trying to protect us. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2563249.stm
________
________

For some historical perspective, a recorded lecture in which the author of Brave New World discusses using terrorism to create willing slaves out of the population.:
Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution, March 20, 1962

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,57040,00.html

(snip)

The new wireless systems introduce a range of other complex issues. Even older cell phones could easily be used as audio bugs, often without any modifications.

(snip)

Excellent lecture. Always a pleasure to listen to Mr. Huxley.
Also the other lectures on the page are great. Thank you for these fine links. -S

gotta agree with eric $$ 280 million people $$ dont know how many of them use the internet but must be a lot $$ gotta figure billions of data sent electronically every day $$ government could try to tap in on key words but even that would be overwhelming $$ likely as with most surveliance ops they will target individuals or organizations who threaten populace $$ that would include those domestic entities (as opposed to foreign) who would use unlawful means to try and usurp what the majority regards as peace $$ i got no problem with that

266$1911