The Future of Tech And NSA Wiretaps 643
Tyler Too writes "Is there more to last week's story about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without court review? Ars Technica writes about what's going on behind the curtains with the National Security Agency's technology: 'When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.'"
About the tapping itself... (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that they did this without even consulting the FISA court is completely illegal, and bypasses the checks and balances of our government. I don't think anything will happen to the prez, but this is really just disgusting.
Nothing new here... move along. (Score:5, Informative)
This really isn't anything new. In fact Carter used the Exact same Authority [fas.org] that Bush is using now. That executive order became Executive Order 12333 under Reagan in 1981. Gorelick also stated that Clinton used the same authority. From a CATO Report:
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
FISA itself has ruled that:t ml?id=110007703 [opinionjournal.com]
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
Bush also pointed out that the 9/11 resolution gave him additional authority. Here is the verbage:
"use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons [...] "
The technology behind it all (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about a PGP phone? (Score:5, Informative)
The only slightly tricky part of this is that the NSA have to convincingly imitate the other person when you're exchanging keys.
Classic Man-in-the-middle attack; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_middle [wikipedia.org]
Anybody have a cache or text of referenced article (Score:3, Informative)
and the article is not in the google cache.
Re:muddy issues (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm. Judicial review disagrees with you. Unfortunitly their opinions matter.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Informative)
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
George W Bush
April 20, 2004
Here is his full statement from that day:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-38
Re:Terrorist activity (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing new here... move along. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's when you don't count the top secret warrantless taps, which they weren't talking about because they're top secret
Re:How about a PGP phone? (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKI [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGP [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPG [wikipedia.org]
For those that haven't been keeping up... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing new here... move along. (Score:2, Informative)
from http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-m
Re:Great movie ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The question is, WHAT did they want to do... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, even less than that. Quoting Bruce Schneier: "In all that time, only four warrant requests were ever rejected: all in 2003." And "all that time" here actually does refer to the entire period of time where that secret kangaroo court existed.
Re:Anybody have a cache or text of referenced arti (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly, Arstechnica does not currently appear in DNS space visible from New Zealand, as of a few hours ago. I have retreived an IP address from cache and tried to traceroute to it, but no joy.
I too would like to see a cached copy. Anyone?
Vik
Re:Great movie ... (Score:1, Informative)
You would argue correctly: the working title of Brazil was "1984 and a half."
I heard they had to change it to something else when it came out that a major
studio was doing their own (doublethink!) version of "the real" 1984. hrm.
Did someone pull the plug at Server Central? (Score:2, Informative)
Where did I put my tinfoil?
% whois arstechnica.com
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SERVERCENTRAL.NET 64.202.100.113
NS2.SERVERCENTRAL.NET 64.202.96.102
% host arstechnica.com 64.202.100.113
% host arstechnica.com 64.202.96.102
% traceroute-nanog -A -O -U 64.202.100.113
1
2
3
4 dist4-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (67.114.50.66) [AS7132] postmaster@pbi.net 14 ms
5 bb2-g2-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.41.239) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 45 ms
6 bb1-p3-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.191.205) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 12 ms
7 151.164.42.77 (151.164.42.77) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 16 ms
8 core1-p8-0.cranca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.241.225) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 13 ms
9 core2-p11-0.crscca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.242.81) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 44 ms
10 bb1-p8-0.crscca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.40.62) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 27 ms
11 ex2-p5-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.41.109) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 33 ms
12 unknown.sjc.scnet.net (66.225.245.237) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 29 ms
13 ge0-3-0.j1.sjc.scnet.net (64.202.104.230) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 26 ms
14 ge-3-0-1.3940.j2.ord.scnet.net (205.234.205.97) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 66 ms
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * ^C
% whois scnet.net
Administrative Contact:
Server Central Network
Customer Owned Domain (hostmaster@servercentral.net)
+1.3128291111
Fax: +1.3128291110
2002 West Chicago Ave
PMB 101 / Hostmaster
Chicago, IL 60622-5548
US
% whois scservers.com
Administrative Contact:
Server Central
Domain Customer Owned (admin@servercentral.net)
+1.3128291111
Fax: +1.3128291110
2002 W Chicago Ave PMB 101
Chicago, IL 60622
US
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Informative)
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Informative)
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
And some gov'ts terrorize eco groups: France (Score:3, Informative)
Like when France conducted paramilitary operation against Greenpeace, attaching a mine to their boat, killing one crewmember?
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:2, Informative)
It's the law stoopid and unlike Steven Seagal, the president is not above the law. If a strict interpretation of these laws are followed, this could be an impeachable offence, hence Dubya has been rolling out the P.R. machine the past few days.
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, you're creating a false dichotomy: Socialism is wrong, therefore Capitalism is right. Or vice versa. Similarly, one who criticizes certain aspects of capitalism as practiced (concentration of wealth, for example), must be anti-Capitalism. This "All-or-Nothing" thinking is illogical and flawed.
I'm curious as to whether you think the Open Source movement and methodology is "Communist", or if you prefer to ignore its social, economic, and political ramifications.