What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.214 Comments
- Enitime, on 10/12/2007, -16/+154The United States has at least a dozen different intelligence agencies. FBI, NSA, CIA, Secret Service, NCS, etc.They have different purposes and are not interchangeable. The NSA is -NOT- the FBI.
The NSA charter clearly prohibits "acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons"
THAT is the problem. - Enitime, on 10/12/2007, -5/+66What's my argument? How many times do you see the word "foreign" in what you just posted? The title of the Digg story implies the NSA are allowed to spy on americans. Your basis for this is a US code section about the FBI.
The FBI is not the NSA.
My argument is: The linked information proves diddly. - Enitime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61The confusing part here is that the link you submitted as proof of the legality of NSA actions, doesn't mention the NSA. In fact it specifically mentions a -different- government agency. Authority granted to one does not apply to the other, they are separate entities.
Example: A police officer can pull you over and fine you for speeding. A postman cannot. A marine cannot. A senator cannot. Even though they all work for the same government. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45No one in this forum knows what the NSA is doing with what data in any respect. But it is behaving strangely for an agency that claims to be acting within the law...
The Bush administration has changed their story 3 TIMES in the last month as to what the NSA is doing (so far.)
First they maintained the NSA was not monitoring Telephone Traffic without Warrants.
Then they maintained that the NSA was only monitoring Overseas Telephone Traffic without Warrants
THEN they maintained that the NSA is only looking at the phone RECORDS of 40 Million Americans without Warrants...
So what will they be saying when the next bit of truth leaks out in the next week or so?
Never forget, it wasn't the break-in at the Watergate Hotel that cost Nixon his job, it was the cover-up. - Enitime, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Executive Order 12333 here http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html
If you can find something in the USA PATRIOT act that overrides it, please enlighten us. - MikeyMoose, on 01/30/2009, -1/+19TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > ยง 2709 is specific to the FBI and has nothing to do with what the NSA is doing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26Typical. That's the American Way. "Well, it APPEARS legal, so I guess we should just bend over and accept the anal entry in the form of diminishing rights."
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I think you mean two years after 1984...
- thehomeskillet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT
they are not one in the same - snafuhalitosis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14this is about the fbi, not the nsa. and it also says that they can only request the information "provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I do believe speech is protected by the first amendment, so spying on me because I'm using a telephone would seem to be in violation of this
- lendrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
**
This article conveniently ignores the fact that the requests need to be ISSUED IN WRITING on a PER-ENTITY BASIS. The director (or his designee) have not been sitting around writing up a request for every single person in the united states.
Secondly, this law appears to be unconstitutional as it stands, because it allows wiretapping to take place without a warrant. - Cander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Wording is a bit tricky
"request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. "
Seems to me that yes they can request specific people, but can they say 'Give us ALL your records for everyone!'? - seattle98104, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16so since when has the nsa been the director of the FBI?
- lendrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You're trivializing freedom.
Privacy and the right to anonymity (along with separation of church and state, and free speech, etc) are things that people have fought and died for. When privacy is eroded, freedom is eroded as well. Whistleblowers depend on their privacy so they can fight corruption without fear of harassment or ending up in Gitmo.
Somewhere along the line, we got things mixed up: Right now, people's lives are open but the government's activities are private. The reverse should be true. - shamu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I guess you didn't read section (e) Requirement That Certain Congressional Bodies Be Informed. Not only does this not apply to the NSA, but I don't see them doing that anyway. They won't even use the FISA courts to obtain warrants, so I doubt they would go out of their way to inform congress.
- yosh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This clause specifically deals with the FBI, *not* the NSA. Sorry, try again.
- firelace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Just goes to show. When someone can't read letters and assume FBI = NSA. Stupid. Got a lame count.
- revgriddler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, we should let them check all our houses to check for terrorism-related things, like qu'rans, too, cause I don't have one! Why should you care, if you have nothing to hide?
Don't give me the "if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear" bull. - derekl00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Nobody is talking about a wiretap here. Presumably if they wanted to actually listen to the content of your call they would need a warrant unless one end of the call terminated overseas.
- revgriddler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12santiago, you heard of this one book by Orwell...?
- mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8This link is irrelevant. Crazyfan himself said it amongst the first few modded-down paragraphs.
"I'll agree to that, I submitted the wrong link to back my claim..." - m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This posting is inaccurate. The counterintelligence measure linked is for the FBI, not the NSA. Reported as inaccurate.
- rosshosman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It isn't legal if it goes against the 4th amendment no matter who signed it....
- Nathan07, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And here is proof that it IS illegal (from the same website linked no less):
(c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.%u2014
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity%u2014
(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or [1]
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the
(A) name;
(B) address;
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
[The above is from part (c) from this page: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002703----000-.html ] - ronito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's the whole point.
I don't care whether or not it's legal. Man in Missouri you could legally kill a Mormon until the late 60s. It's whether or not it's CONSTITUTIONAL. You can make anything a law. However, it could be struck down as unconstitutional, and that is one of the things that used to make America great. - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ crazyman, people have already pointed out the FBI is not the NSA, but the other important line in that link is this:
"certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States;"
see the part where it says "RELEVANT TO AN AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION" - yeah that kind of means that they have this thing called a warrant or have gotten approval from a judge - in laymans terms, it means that have a specific reason for looking at specific individual's phone records. Nowhere in there does it say that any agency can blindly request all of the records of all of the subscribers on the off chance that they might have a future investigation involving one of the customers. And it specifically states that it cannot be done solely on the basis of free speech activities - as in, you can't listen to someone just because you don't like what they're saying, or you "might" not like what they're saying. Again you need a specific reason (as in probable cause or a warrant) you cannot blindly and arbitrarily search. This is the same reason cops can't come up to everyones door and search their homes w/o probable cause on the off chance they might find something illegal inside your home.
Instead of validating the NSA, you have shown once again that the NSA spying is blatantly against the law; and your own illiteracy. - revgriddler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9So everybody in the US is a terrorist? Then why are we fighting ourselves?
- sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is all fine and good, and I do appreciate any effort to educate people as to the illegality of the NSA's current domestic data-mining operations, however, what truly makes this illegal is that it violates the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Patriot Act may or may not trump the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, depending on the wording, etc, however, no act, bill, law, precedent, ruling, etc, aside from a constitutional amendment can supersede the fourth amendment.
THAT is why this is illegal - it's worse than illegal, it's unconstitutional. - superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6then you are a boring person.
- treed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sorry, pet peeve of mine:
The phrase you're thinking of is "one and the same". - worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Think about the big picture. We've spent 200+ BILLION dollars "protecting ourselves from terrorism". Think if we had spent that researching, say, cancer. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
- kipin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section."
Uh, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a different government agency than the agency that is conducting illegal wiretaps/monitoring on millions of Americans, The National Security Agency. - upenox, on 10/12/2007, -18/+22Still in denial I see. Yeah sport, your administration is doing a great job.
- mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@SyDIGG: The NSA is essentially God at this point. Intelligence trumps freedom, no questions asked. Better yet, they can't be touched by the DoJ. How wonderful this empire has become.
http://digg.com/security/NSA_now_immune_to_the_Department_of_Justice
Some people trust the government, unconditionally, and that is a problem. Then again, a lot of our citizens are mindless puppets themselves and probably would never be able to make a coherent decision regarding our privacy, just as long as you tell them "the good". - Braddock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How does having balls have anything to do with whether Digg is for or against the program? Did you even read the contents of the link? This had to do with the FBI, not the NSA.
Are you that anti-privacy, and so pro-mass surveillance that you just look at the topic line and make a judgment based on that? I'd normally suggest to read between the lines, but in your case, I'd suggest to "read" period.
Next, what constitutes a rant? Your blind commentary is more of a rant than the previously mentioned articles which discussed the legitimate concerns of constitutional scholars and the privacy implications for the citizenry.
Finally, you say the article has facts... WHERE? Its a federal statute!! Do you know what a statute is? A difference exists between facts, opinions, and laws... I think we went over this in... grade school. Do you post on Freerepublic, your bumpersticker arguments would tend to indicate so. - MadOgre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Funny how this is now outrageous when Congress has been aware of this since the beginning.
- CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If that law purports to allow unconstitutional actions, then the law itself is unconstitutional.
- Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 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.
You do not own the phone companies phone records. It is the phone companies fault for keepign records like this. Which makes you wonder. why did they keep a database with who called who for as long as they did? - mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Snafu... I wish more people could be that simplistic in nature.
You're absolutely right in that the first amendment guarantees us freedom of speech. It's the nonsense bureaucracy not only blurring the lines between what is legal and illegal, but also choosing what is in our best interest FOR US without a vote.
That is not democracy. So much for the 1st amendment. - YossarianDent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to chime in with the "What do you have to hide if you're not doing anything wrong?" logical trump card.
Thanks to this whole NSA fiasco, that phrase (and all derivatives thereof) has earned a place in my Big Book O' ***** Ignorant Arguments right next to, "You didn't vote; you don't have a right to criticize the administration," and, "He's the President; who are you to question his judgment?"
Seriously, do people even think their rebuttals through anymore? Natural selection's vacation has gone on long enough. - antisthenex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Have you read any of the comments? The majority of the comments are pretty pissed at the BS this article is spewing.
- derekl00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm assuming the wiretapping is another issue which wasn't to be addressed here. On that note, I haven't heard anybody assert that a completely domestic phone call had ever been listened in on without a warrant.
- podperson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing ... the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities"
Versus -- we'll just grab everything and make a database out of it. Oh and by the way, this only applies (as has been stated above) to the FBI.
"On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee ... concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section."
That would be a pretty dull (and lengthy) session.
Let's go back to first principles here. Did we fail to stop 9/11 because we lacked the information, or because we couldn't find the information buried in the pile of meaningless drivel we accumulate as a matter of course? I think it's safe to say that we HAD the information and simply failed to RECOGNISE it.
In the course of events of 9/11/2001 many of the problems which occurred were a result of inter-organizational communication. E.g. the civilian air traffic controllers and the defense air traffic controllers were not able to coordinate quickly enough.
Our current administration has attempted to "solve" our problems analysing and evaluating data by providing huge amounts of extra data and firing analysts. It has attempted to "solve" problems caused by having way too many organizations with overlapping responsibilities which are woefully unable to coordinate or cooperate by creating MORE organizations. - XxN3RDC0R3xX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I read a few of the comments here, but not all. My two cents:
I don't give two ***** on a stick whether it's legal or not. I don't want the government spying on me. Period. - cazbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People seem to think our safety is more important than our freedom. This is most definitely not in accordance with the principles this country was founded on. The simple phrase "Give me liberty or give me death" very clearly illustrates that.
Fact: We should be more concerned about things like our privacy than we should about terrorists. These are basic Bill of Rights freedoms we're talking about here. People died to give them to us. They are what makes America great. They are what differentiates us from the bad guys. We can't possibly hope to defeat our enemies if we become our enemies.
Fact: We CAN protect ourselves from terrorists without violating our basic freedoms. Either Bush does not see this, or he has some other agenda that he is using the terrorists to cover up. Either way, we made a very bad choice by electing him as president.
9/11 killed nearly 3000 people. That number is significant. I will not argue with that point. What I will argue with is this idea that the above number means that the terrorist threat is the worst threat we face. There had not been a terrorist attack that killed anywhere near as many people before it, and there has not been one since. In that same year, over 16,000 people (not including the above 3000) were murdered, over 500,000 died of cancer, and nearly 700,000 died of heart disease, all within the US. On an 10-year average, more people die from drowning in their bathtubs per year than are killed by terrorists on US soil. With the staggering number of deaths from these other causes, why does the Bush administration put so much emphasis on terrorism?
If I have to live with the possibilty that terrorists could come into my country and kill me, then so be it (although it is far more likely that I would be killed by a fellow citizen, as the above numbers show). But I will not surrender my freedoms. Freedom is far more important than safety. - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As stated like 20 times this has nothing to do with the NSA. In addition who cares if they get your call records(except for the fact that it is illegal), the bigger issue is warrantless domestic wiretapping.
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't care what anyone says, they are violating the constitution. Which is the base law of the land.
- XxN3RDC0R3xX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Maybe some people might want a little privacy?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is