The New FISA Bill: Security versus Liberty?

Sam Tresler writes:  Ain't quite savvy on his trackback technology... What are your thoughts on telco immunity?

The Mad Pigeon:  First, here's an excerpt from Sam's site - Long story short: The government spied on us. They listened to our phone calls, and the telephone companies gave them neat access to do this. The telecom's knew they were potentially breaking a constitutional law and they didn't do one thing to stand up against it. Now, they are asking for retroactive immunity for what they did.  CONTINUED

And a Link the the bill in question.

An excerpt from Crooks and Liars: The bill has two basic components. First, it creates a carve-out that exempts nearly all international communications (even when one party is in the U.S.) from FISA’s regular provisions (which require individualized warrants, minimization, judicial review, etc.). The second half of the bill then grants the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence the power to authorize warrantless surveillance of the category of communications carved out by the first half of the bill. This authority is conditioned on compliance with a series of not-very-rigorous procedures and oversight requirements. The Attorney General and DNI must certify in writing (and under oath) that certain factual predicates have been met, and they must come up a set of operating protocols designed to ensure that only the carved out category of communications are intercepted. These operating protocols are then submitted to the FISA court for review on an annual basis (the court reviews them under the highly deferential “clearly erroneous” standard).

Most of the debate in Congress and coverage of the bill in the media has focused on whether these procedures and oversight requirements are sufficiently rigorous to protect Americans’ civil liberties. They’re not. But that’s more or less beside the point because–and this is what I think many people do not yet appreciate–given the way FISA is structured, the President is under no obligation to follow even these watered-down oversight requirements. They are merely optional.

Finally, more commentary at Salon:  The cooperation between the various military/intelligence branches of the Federal Government -- particularly the Pentagon and the NSA -- and the private telecommunications corporations is extraordinary and endless. They really are, in every respect, virtually indistinguishable. The Federal Government has its hands dug deeply into the entire ostensibly "private" telecommunications infrastructure and, in return, the nation's telecoms are recipients of enormous amounts of revenues by virtue of turning themselves into branches of the Federal Government.

All that said, just the idea that the gov'mint is listening in on average Joes without proper legal coverage gives me piles. 

You see, we have this program--at least within the Department of Defense--called Intelligence Oversight, which governs how intel personnel gather data on US citizens.

Basically, rule #1 is the DoD does not spy on our own people, unless ubder strict rules, regulations, and evidence-backed probable cause.  The thought of ogling into Sam Tresler's window stinks of a bad McCarthy-esque Sci-Fi film.

As for how the CIA or FBI handles it, that's their business.  But as a pigeon who already thinks the Federal Government's far bigger than the founders planned, I do not like seeing Dubya playing with civil liberties like a box of tinker toys.

But this does beg a question:  how much liberty are we willing to give up for security?  That's why I like showing "V for Vendetta" in class and discussing the Star Wars mythology.  Just by watching the respective movies, the viewer never really learns why the ironclad security apparati are so sinister:  people are at the pub in "V," or watching the TV, or going to work.  In Star Wars, the economy seems to be doing well, and the legions of Storm Troopers are probably flush with college money.

In the case of "V," one has to consider if the comfort of a cold pint and comfortable job make up for censorship.  And as MOGS pointed out to me, the Star Wars movies may not demonstrate why the empire is evil, but the books sure as hell do.

In short, Sam, I'm with ya: I don't like the idea of someone listening in on my calls home to Momma or combing my blog for damning evidence.  I'll take liberty over security, since I think excessive security plays right into our opponent's hands.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Chuck Adkins, High Desert Wanderer, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[C-Chan]

Ah, telecom. Such rant bait for me. But due to the nature of my job, I should be careful.

I'll just say this: isn't it interesting that we can't find a way to hold this Administration responsible for spying on us but there is a possibility that the telecom companies might get sued for it.

Also you may find interesting this article about yet more questionable procedures regarding cell phone tracking.

[Sam Tresler]

So, I should find more time to post, but here are two quick things that I have found interesting since I originally wrote that.

One of these http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2006/11/23/nypd-installs-portable-watchtower-in-harlem/ showed up on my streetcorner around Halloween. It records in all four directions direct to harddrive. Interestingly, it doesn't record inside itself, already there are accounts of officers saying that the thing they like the most about it is that no one can hear them, so they can make fun of everyone as they pass.

Second, was a great Steven Colbert quote that I can't quite remember, something along the lines of "Give me liberty, or at least make sure I'm safe; I don't want to die."

Third, is just going back to the point of that post you reference. I, also, hate the idea of being surveilled (is that a word?) - but the scary part about telco immunity is that it sets a precedent for a corporation to go directly to congress to avoid prosecution.

Think about that for a second... Congress -> lobbiyist -> immunity. I mean, we all know you can buy an innocent verdict with the right lawyers, but this is suggesting that a corporation - via congress, can circumvent the courts altogether. That, even more than the Big Brother issue, is what terrifies me about that bill.

At what point does it become cheaper to pass a law to protect yourself, than it does to go to court?

[Sam Tresler]

Nice... Two things......1, 2, 3. I R smrt.