« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
With all the talk about the new wiretapping law the Senate is expected to approve this week, there are many federal surveillance programs that are going largely unmentioned -- and unmonitored.
A story from the Baltimore Sun points out how limited the proposed FISA legislation is when considered against the whole alphabet soup of surveillance programs run by the federal government.
Although the latest FISA proposal includes numerous provisions for a secret court to monitor and authorize surveillance, and for inspectors general to keep tabs on who's being monitored by various agencies, little oversight exists for surveillance programs that fall outside FISA scrutiny.For example, the new law will limit whether a CIA transcript of a conversation between a alleged terrorist and his relative in the United States could be shared with other spy agencies and analysts.
But it would have little control over whether, say, the Department of Homeland Security can share wiretaps or satellite surveillance with local law enforcement officials.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have requested information about these other surveillance programs, but many agencies are often reluctant to comply, citing security or secrecy concerns, the Sun reports:
Even when Congress has received information, lawmakers say their questions or concerns are often addressed within the agency that is responsible for the surveillance, amounting to a practice of self-policing."You don't have to look far into history to know that when the government, any government, is given secret authorities, that those authorities are ultimately abused," said Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "You don't even have to attribute bad motives to anyone. In an intelligence officer's zeal to protect the country, they often will overstep their bounds."
In response to concerns, the Department of Homeland Security has created a privacy czar to see that federal agencies do not infringe on privacy laws or violate civil liberties. But some suggest that should be a Cabinet-level post in the executive branch since new technologies are constantly creating new questions and concerns.
"We should have what Canada has, which is a minister of privacy, someone looking out for the privacy issues of Americans," said James Bamford, an intelligence expert and author on two books about the history of the NSA. "We have armies of people out there trying to pick into everyone's private life, but we have nobody out there who's an advocate."
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports today about concerns that non-government surveillance is being abused for advertising purposes.
Wednesday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee plans a hearing on the privacy issues raised by online advertising. Critics, meanwhile, are questioning whether the practices used by NebuAd and other ad-targeting companies violate wiretap laws, which prevent carriers from monitoring customer communications.
Josh
Zachary
Total Information Awareness never was discontinued. It got deeper cover, that's all.
July 8, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately many of our Reps and Senators don't take the time to read in entirety a bill up for vote. They scan the highlights and vote only later to find out it was really not their choice. Example: The bill that let Bush go to war with Iraq. Most thought they only agreed to war as a very last resort and would require another vote.
July 8, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you really believe that I've got a bridge to sell you that I'm just positive you'll be happy to buy.
They knew what they were doing. They just liked the wording set up to give them cover.
July 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "statewide voter roll" implemented under Majority Leader LIBERMAN's "Help America Vote Act" is a good example of moving TIA into deeper cover.
This "goo-goo" sounding measure is, in fact, a data-mining facility now shrouded in proprietary restrictions and state secrecy. It is optimized for bill and debt collection, -- timely, considering the "sub-prime mortgage crisis", -- and more useful for vote-suppression than for non-discriminatory ballot-access.
Of course, Speaker HOYER is on board with all of it.
July 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
My cookies and and anti Cheney/Bush (impeach the criminals!)sentiment are sizzlin' up the keyboard.
Have you ever seen employees in a government office at work?
This is not a crowd I want handling anything sensitive. Like me.
Or massive volumes of information they can't even collate let alone interpolate.
And me times the # of people on TPM, Kos, Atrios, etc. The possibility for dangerous ineptitude is enough to scare me; forget the ones designed to screw political opponents...
July 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I have no problem with the content of this post, I find the tone and the headline rather annoying. Activists are focused on FISA because Congress is voting on it and we can do something about it, not because we're unaware of other surveillance programs. I assume you didn't intend this, Andrew, but this post seems to be fodder for people sneering at those of us who care enough to take action because "the real problem" is the Patriot Act or whatever.
The real problem is all of these things, and we don't solve that by saying "there are all these other fires burning, so why bother to put out this one?"
July 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Department of Homeland Security may just be the largest slab of federalized pork I've ever seen.
Why should I trust a so-called privacy czar from these guys when they can't seem to make organizations like FEMA (DOJ, EPA, ...) work half as well as they did before Governor Bush & Company took office?
I think there's validity to the argument for cabinet-level access (which FEMA had, for example, before the Bush Administration put an end to that). Perhaps allowing it implies assumption of liabilities that Governor Bush and his mob would rather not handle. Let the Brownies in this world take the heat for their lack of care or competence.
Needless to say, my patience has long been exhausted by the intentional confounding between our national security and the spineless CYA tactics used in D.C.
July 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right...a privacy czar within DHS seems pretty useless. And call me cynical, but even making this a cabinet level post within the executive branch? Yeah, we've seen how effective the executive branch is at policing itself. Seems like a recipe for making sure no oversight actually happens. All these "great ideas" are being implemented right before the end of the administration....the end of a Republican presidency....just in time for a Democratic executive branch. How convenient.
July 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it is really sad what happened to our country.
Some people say the Republicans ruined our govt. so they can say "See, government doesn't work". This is supposedly so they can kill programs and cut taxes, etc.... I am sure some of that is true.
But LeChimp and TheCheney did this because they are truly the enemy of America's Free Peoples. And just as if you were able to infiltrate and control your enemy....you wouldn't care WHAT you ruined as you masquerade around as the Rightful Leader. It is all your enemy, it is your enemy's government and programs and infrastructure. You could care less what happens to it all.
So to try to crystalize what I am saying....They aren't doing this with any sense of ownership...Their country. They aren't bungling the management of THEIR country, they are deliberately RUINING the capacity of OUR country.
This isn't misplaced patriotism on their part. It isn't THEIR baby that is dying from neglect, it is OUR baby they are stomping on. The enemy's.
Most people thought LeChimp and TheCheney would care for this country at least as if it were their own child. We thought they were watching their own baby....we thought the country was ours....them and us. As miserable as we considered their gifts and charms....at least they would be looking out for the country as best they could, in their own way.
But we were wrong. We GAVE our country into the hands of the Enemy. Just like turning over your Toddler to a childd molesster.
So do they worry about getting caught? Are they mindful of the crimes they have committed against THEIR country (or liable to come to realize this at a later date) or are they simply inside the enemy's castle walls and destroying everything they can before they retreat to their own castle?
Righties like to rail about how liberals would let the commies or muzzlims or hollwood childd molessters run the country.....and they directly handed over the reins of our country to much nastier boogeymen than their worst liberal dreams.
July 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans are natural snitches. This characteristic was once discouraged, but no more. It's just a short step from snitching on your classmates to snitching on your parents. Our Puritan heritage also makes us born voyeurs, too.
Put it all together, and you have today's American adult, ready to tell on anybody they can tell on.
America, the land of tattle-tales and snitches.
July 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And nothing, nothing gets an American more hot-hot-hot than the chance to tattle on someone for "bad-think". This is what they have specialised in since kindergarten. Exposing and reviling anyone who has had the temerity or bad judgement to confide a non-conforming thought is better than sex for Americans.
Maybe it makes them feel better for never having had a thought of their own.
But I just realised, I've been using "them" when I meant "you".
July 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...you say "Our Puritan heritage", yet then you use non-American spellings of "realise", "realised" and "specialised".
Sounds like you might be a bit confused about on which side of the Pond you live? ;-)
(yes, this is a JOKE)
July 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amendment Would Put Spy Lawsuits, Amnesty On Hold Pending Investigation
And I think, ohhh hell no. I say grant amnesty with willfull ignorance.
I see Obama on TV with the family as if he could flip-the-channel on the flip-flop he made on FISA.
Real point is this, with amnesty done there will be an educated voter who will resort to a second teir issue of support.
And those whom actually follow the FISA issue are typically not your koolaid drinkers, instead they are moderates and independents, who don't like being categorized let alone eavesdropped upon.
The "compromise" on that "principle" will delineate and create a line of demarcation that will remain in those voters retina as they filter ever subsequent message from Obama.
I'm looking forward to the statements of I would have voted against it if I had known of this abuse or that abuse, ohhhh no much better to grant blanket amnesty and stick your head in the samd.
My bet is that Obama alienates Ron Paul and Dodd supporters and forces the realization upon independents and moderates that it is all shuck and jive rhetoric.
July 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink