FBI Violated Electronic Communications Privacy Act 285
An anonymous reader writes to tell us of a report from the Washington Post which alleges that the FBI "illegally collected more than 2,000 US telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records." The report continues,
"E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. ... FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show."
Duhh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your tax dollars aren't being used to your benefit. Your never going to get propper health care when it's more profitable for politicians to sell you out to insurance companies for 'campaign contributions'
I can't even find out how much my insurance company will cover for a given procedure. They refuse to tell me until its to late.
But the FBI can break the law and spy on me all day...
Re:Duhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
And they have been able to twist the "healthcare" debate into a discussion about government taking away "freedoms"... while this is going on under their noses.
We've got a lot of people here in the US right now that are running after not only RED herrings, but blue, pink, orange and red pokadotted herrings as well.
Re:Duhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many American's, whether they are democrat or republican aren't very happy with Obama because he promised two major things with healthcare: he would not force people to buy insurance and that he would televise healthcare discussions with insurance and big pharma companies.
He did a complete 180 on both of those promises. Many democrats realize what Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, that the current healthcare bills are bailouts to the insurance companies and wall street.
On topic for the FBI; they have always broken the law in very deliberate ways. Go read about the FBI's COINTELPRO operations.
You can watch this documentary: COINTELPRO: The FBI's war on black America [google.com]
Or you can read this Church Committee Report [icdc.com] on how the FBI illegally spied on Martin Luther King Jr. for years, using the Communist scare to justify their actions (the more things that change...)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons why people don't trust their government and it has nothing to do with what color fish people enjoy consuming. This country was founded on the principle of treating government actions with a large dose of skepticism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I happen to prefer the employer mandate, but *some* form of mandate is absolutely necessary to avoid a death spiral in the indus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The logical way that he could have done so would've been an employer mandate
That's only "logical" if you operate in a vacuum and ignore the realities of running a business. Such a mandate would drive many companies out of business in the worst case or force them to lay off workers in the best case. You don't fix unemployment problems by burdening employers with unfunded mandates.
Re:Duhh... (Score:4, Informative)
What if I don't want to be part of the risk pool? What if I'd rather have the money my employer is going to spend on health insurance in my paycheck instead? The mandate is unpopular specifically because it takes away our freedom of choice.
Besides which, costs won't go down. Costs aren't going up because we don't have everybody in the same risk pool. Costs are going up because we've built a system that requires the involvement of several different layers of bureaucracy (public and private) before a simple bill for an office visit can be paid. Costs won't come down until people realize the absurdity of a system that uses insurance (a product designed to protect against catastrophe) to pay for routine expenses.
Can you imagine a system wherein your car insurance paid for oil changes? What about one where your homeowners insurance paid to shovel your sidewalks in the winter? Do you think that such a system might cost more than paying for those services out of your own pocket?
There's a really good article [theatlantic.com] in The Atlantic that looks at this problem. A problem that has been completely ignored during the debate about health care in DC. Give it a read, it'll be well worth your time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And as for the actual proposal, it's better than deficit-neutral over ten years
My household budget would look pretty good too if I had ten years of income and only six years of expenses.....
Re:Duhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, my costs go up because I'm forced to either buy insurance (which I don't need) or pay a penalty (for not buying insurance).
Question: why should I have to use my money to cover the medical expenses of my next door neighbor who smokes half a pack a day? Or how about my other neighbor who thinks it's great to drink a case of beer every weekend by himself.
What about some of the people I work with who waddle like hippos yet refuse to walk up one flight of stairs? (excluding those who legitimately can't walk due to arthritis and the like).
Why must I spend my money to cover someone else? Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't want?
And don't use that tired argument of how, if I need it at some point in the future, I'll have it because I could have been investing that money all along and be able to pay my bills if I ever need to. Nor will I ever be covered to the extent I've paid in. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding that last statement...
It only takes one catastrophic event to change the dynamic from "Nor will I ever be covered to the extent I've paid in. Ever" to "Nor will I ever be pay in to the extent I've been covered. Ever"
About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeries and two weeks later, I went home. Total bill: $290,000. Total amount I paid: $0.
That's a bad example to make to justify mandatory health insurance. Injuries of that nature would have been covered under your motorcycle/automobile policy. In fact if you read your health insurance policy it almost certainly has an exclusion for situations where another insurance company is liable for your injuries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeries and two weeks later, I went home. Total bill: $290,000. Total amount I paid: $0.
That's a bad example to make to justify mandatory health insurance. Injuries of that nature would have been covered under your motorcycle/automobile policy. In fact if you read your health insurance policy it almost certainly has an exclusion for situations where another insurance company is liable for your injuries.
And fundamentally, it certainly should be so. The risk being described is in operating the motorcycle, rather than merely being alive. Higher utilization as a result of a wreck should drive up the cost of motorcycle insurance, not health insurance in general, because of the risk-reward nature of insurance.
Further parties who felt the cost of motorcycle insurance were too high would be incentivized to lower their risks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should you pay for police protection for your neighbor? Why should you pay for schools, when you don't have kids? Why should you pay for Air Traffic Control, when you are scared to fly? Why should you pay for a bridge you will never use? Why should you pay for someone to come up with and enforce building codes? Why should you pay for roads that you will never drive on? Why should you pay for farm aid to a wheat farmer when you can't eat wheat? Why should you pay for anything?
We live in a society. We all
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be rather unimpressed when my daughter would come home with a new lover talking like the GP.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again, profit cannot be present in a place where the most important thing is to cure people.
If profit isn't present then I think you'll see the quality of the health care system go down. What do you think motivates many people to get into medicine?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"There is no fucking hope when 'movements' like the 'birthers', tea-baggers, etc. have gained any significant traction at all, instead of being laughed right out of every single mainstream media outlet."
Why not?
A 'birther' wants to know that no one who lacks the qualifications for office may be elected. There's nothing catastrophic in this.
A 'tea-bagger' wants no taxation without representation. Again, I fail to see the 'danger' of this idea.
Please, enlighten us.
The FBI? Surely not! (Score:3, Funny)
The FBI violated our privacy and civil rights? Surely not, I tell you!
-JJS
Re:The FBI? Surely not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But if there is no real penalty being applied when this happens, can it really be considered illegal?
The FBI has been repeatedly caught doing these and other things such as using NSL's improperly, and even lying to Congress, and yet I never hear "and so and so who did it went to jail" or even "and those involved were fired".
Re: (Score:2)
They have nothing to hide except all the "I have nothing to hide" posts.
Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
When even the Supreme Court doesn't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that, they'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People revolt because they feel they have no other option and there are leaders strong enough to rally them. Look at the shit people took in Iraq and never revolted.
Yet, look at Indias revolution.
History shows that revolution happens, but only after years of oppression. Here in the USA, we get perceived renewed hope every 4, 6, to 8 years. Problem is, the "other guy" always did it even though those that actually did it have been in power throughout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's basically what the whole surveillance is about: Ensuring no body emerges that could work as a focal point. Do you think India would have had a successful revolution without Ghandi? Or someone who could take his place? Successful revolutions without a head are rare in history.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well. Although you do need a pretty corrupt government for this to happen, and the Us is nowhere near there yet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well.
And most unsuccessful revolutions have been crushed by the army. Funny how that works out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Soldiers are citizens too. And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.
That has rarely been the case throughout history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kent State? May 4th 1970 Ohio National Guard from over 300 feet away fires into a crowd of unarmed students killing four, one student is shot in the back and one student not involved it the protest is killed from a stray bullet. Courts said the Guard was justified killing the unarmed and distant students and not even an apology was issued.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly soldiers are citizens. But you must not underestimate how little real information soldiers get.
When you look at how the Soviet systems crushed revolutions, you will notice that the soldiers were usually crucial for the success of the oppression. How could they fight against someone who basically did what they wanted themselves, more freedom? Simply by giving them false information. Those soldiers were told that it wasn't a revolution backed by the people, they were told that a few insurgents toppl
Re: (Score:2)
Revolt isn't necessary: the Federal Government is going to go bankrupt in the fairly near future
Cant they just order the federal reserve to print more money?
Afaict most US debt is denominated in US dollars so the US can simply inflate it's way out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Revolt isn't necessary: the Federal Government is going to go bankrupt in the fairly near future Cant they just order the federal reserve to print more money?
Afaict most US debt is denominated in US dollars so the US can simply inflate it's way out of it.
I agree on the inflation part, but disagree on the revolt assertion. The necessary inflation (which is tantamount to a tax BTW), would have to be massive and is precisely what will cause a revolt.
2000? What a shame they overdid it (Score:4, Funny)
Had they collected 16 fewer records, it could have been so much more appropriate.
Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.
How does that punish the FBI? We the People, then have to deal with the criminals.
Instead, punish the FBI, by punishing the FBI. Fire their asses.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, punish the FBI, by punishing the FBI. Fire their asses... out of a cannon. Maybe aimed at a country they'd feel more comfortable in, like North Korea or Iran.
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fire them? That should just be the start of it. Indictments, followed by a criminal trial, followed by a stint in prison if found guilty is what should happen to them. Will it? Probably not, but one can hope that there is still a shred of sanity left.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need are the names. Then those wronged by the FBI could file suit in Federal court, due to the seriousness of the allegation that they were involved in a terrorist attack.
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about making some of the guilty in the FBI do the perp walk?
Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Law enforcement officers are not above the law.
Sure they are. Two recent events:
1. I'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway. I'm in the normal lane, on the right, and the trooper's in the passing lane, though he's not passing anyone; he's just cruising, there. A county sheriff comes up behind us, lights and siren going, in the passing lane, and the statie does nothing: doesn't move over to the right lane, doesn't speed up, doesn't slow down - nothing. After following the sta
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law."
Yeah, the problem is Barack Obama chose not to pursue the crimes of the Bush Administration. He believed that doing so would cause a Republican backlash. It is an understandable strategy, but leaves no room for JUSTICE. It also hasn't prompted the right-wingers to cut him any slack.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything they should face a harsher sentence than a regular member of the public.
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:4, Insightful)
What should be done is convict the criminal and then turn around and convict the investigator who broke the law during the course of the investigation.
What you propose is just 'two wrongs make a right as long as two different people commit them'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you shouldn't convict the criminal based on illegally obtained evidence.
The reason for this is simple.
Do you know of every possible statute in your law that could put you behind bars if you violated it?
In Canada, we have the Criminal Code, for which most violations have the option of a jail term. There are lawyers who have made it their life's work for decades to work with only the criminal code, and still don't have it all down.
Then on top of that, there are the various tax, anti-terrorist crap, immig
Re: (Score:2)
Now, you'll find it hard to commit almost any crime completely in the privacy of your home, in such a way no outside information will point to it
Oral sex is a criminal offence in something like 21 different states.
Crime? Check.
Privacy of my home? Check.
No outside information points to it? Check.
Done by the vast majority of couples, married or not, at some point in their relationship? Check.
See? Everybody's a criminal. The only reason this doesn't get prosecuted more often is:
1. It's stupid.
2. It's difficult to catch somebody doing it without illegally gathering evidence.
But if someone were to decide to nail someone on political reasons, there'
Re: (Score:2)
The part about having any evidence admittable in court works fine. The second part never works or at least I have never heard of any cop/prosecutor getting in any trouble for unlawfully collected evidence. No matter what you do you're fucked but at least in the US you get less fucked than in most countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:5, Insightful)
FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. (emphasis added)
It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of "technicalities". Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that, with unconscious irony, is always calling for "law and order" -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law doesn't or at least shouldn't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them. When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation, they are regarded as "getting off on a technicality", and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are "soft on crime". Of course, what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement, and they are far-sighted enough to know that treating law enforcement agencies as being above the law is the royal road to serfdom, but the yokels don't get it. In their view, the function of the law is to dish out punishment, not to maintain actual order, and anything that gets in the way of punishing people -- often including their actual innocence -- angers them.
Unfortunately, there's not a lot of sympathy among those types for enforcing proper police procedure. They're the same people who hold the view that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care about being searched. And it's true enough that they have nothing to hide inside their trailer parks, so why worry?
I wouldn't expect anything to change until the "law and order" faction grasps the fact that the expression "technical violation of the law" has no actual meaning; something is in violation of the law or it is not, and if the law is to lead to justice, it must apply to everyone equally, whether it's a thug holding up a liquor store or a better-dressed thug illegally wiretapping American citizens.
Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules. I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.
It's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated, and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk. That's generally been the "teeth" in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence. It's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights, because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he didn't have any rights and had to confess, so his confession was thrown out and he walked.
The thing is, it's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything. It's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records. All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking "nonexistent emergencies". Well if the emergency was non-existent, it's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.
The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions. Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties, but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats. So the FBI's counsel can say that they only "technically" violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack, and hey that might even be true, but the practical result was they made it harder to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.
Hey, who would have thought that the FBI "technically" violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties, and to "Ends justify the means" types?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think these illegal wiretaps lead to any convictions. So there is no case, no judge, and no defendant.
Told you so! (Score:5, Funny)
After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.
Sincerely,
Your Fox Opinutainment Team
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why will Obama not Deny that he signed each one of these requests? I have heard that several of them were related to Glen Beck killing and raping a young girl in 1990. [gb1990.net]
Why won't Glen Beck Deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990? And why won't President Obamba deny that he signed each one of these orders personally?
(ever notice how when the last administration was in, certain people got mad, and corrected you that "It is PRESIDENT Bush", and those same people call our current president by his las
Re: (Score:2)
After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.
Sincerely,
Your Fox Opinutainment Team
Obama destroying something? it can't be! they gave him the nobel peace prize!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except that it's A) The Washington Post, not FOX, and B) between 2002-2006, solidly in Bush's term. FOX is also carrying the story [foxnews.com], and they also say--right up front, in the lede--that it was 2002-2006, and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence: "The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration, The Washington Post reported Monday [emphasis mine]."
But don't let a silly little thing like fact get in the way of FOX-bashing.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Police are just doing their job. They want their job to be easy and it is their boss's job to make sure they are not breaking the law
No, part of a police officer's job is to uphold the law, it is no more their boss's job to ensure they are not breaking it than it is my parents' job (given I am an adult) to make sure that I'm not breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's my boss's job to make sure I'm not breaking the law? WTF?
I'm sure he'll be happy to know that.
No...it's your job to make sure you're not breaking the law. Especially when you work in law enforcement.
2000+ Felonies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't these violations felonies? If so, then why are criminals employed by the FBI instead of in prison? If not, then (aside from the invasion of privacy), what's the problem?
Who's going to jail? (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be criminal prosecutions (Score:5, Insightful)
about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.
'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.
In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process.
So how many of these were actually true emergencies? And having the legal right to get something doesn't excuse getting it illegally. If the police have probable cause they can get a warrant to search my house. If they decided to skip getting a warrant and search it anyway, the results of that search are inadmissible even though the police could have done it legally. It should be no different in this case. In fact, in this case there's a statute specifically defining the crime, and it does not excuse a criminal act if it could have been done legally but wasn't.
Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.
That's not a legally recognized excuse. The intent that matters is the intent to intercept the communication, which was plainly present (this is not a case of accidentally tapping the wrong line or anything like that). Whether they knew what they were doing was illegal or whether they thought what they were doing was justified is irrelevant in this case, per the statute.
Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted.
Discipline? I hope that's just for starters. The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes." They betrayed the public trust and broke the law even after their illegal behavior was pointed out to them. It's utterly inexcusable.
The federal government should also be made to pay the appropriate statutory civil fine to the parties whose phone records were illegally gathered, which is the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000. If $10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive, the government should take a look at the Copyright Act some time. And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if I am over the speed limit I am in technical violation of the speed limit and I should not get a ticket
Don't know about where you live, but around here, very few speeders get tickets. You really have to be 15+ MPH over the limit before they get interested, and that doesn't count all the miles of roadway where there's no officer even checking speeds. So yeah, if you're speeding, you're technically in violation of the law, but everyone has accepted that it's just not practical to enforce the letter of that law.
Using "technical violation of the law" to describe these wiretaps is a way to tell us that, even th
Where were the T-parties (Score:3, Informative)
Where were the T-parties? Where is Fox news? Why are they not protecting our constitutional rights and going after the people who committed these felonies against the our citizens?
Oh, that's right. The only protest people they think are liberals, who want things like health care, and believe in the rule of law. When a conservative administration breaks the law its for our own good. My bad.
I'm still waiting... (Score:2, Insightful)
You ignorant liberals just don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the event you are joking, my response is this: lulzwut?
In the event you aren't joking, my response is this: lulzwut?
Re: (Score:2)
No, authoritarianism may be better at protecting lives against external threats, but itself may be a graver internal threat.
Or is my sarcasm meter off today?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem. (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:2)
Depends on WHO is breaking the law (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them. By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted. Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior? I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.
You'd get in more trouble for speeding (Score:2, Interesting)
If I were caught speeding, could I justify that by telling the officer who pulled me over that I was stressed?
Now, imagine that instead of speeding, I were instead violating the Constitution of the United States. For a period of several years.
We have rules and laws to prevent this from happening. But if there are no consequences for the people and agencies who violate our rights, then those rights have no teeth. The people who have done this to us should be prosecuted.
Lawless Law Enforcement (Score:2)
I was in a conversation with someone the other day about what it means to be in a civilized society. Where the morality and ethics of a society are important, there is a factor where respect for the law is a top-down characteristic. When a nation of laws implements its laws and punishments in a fair and equitable manner, respect for the law rises. When this doesn't happen, respect for the law decreases. And when the legal system, and especially law enforcement, break the law, you can expect respect for
Suggested Readings: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_Found_in_a_Bathtub [wikipedia.org]
Also probably anything by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky [wikipedia.org], who were originally targetting the Soviet Union. Well, US is SU looking backwards.
CC.
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a false dichotomy. Giving away civil liberties does not equal more safety. There is much more that can be done to prevent crime and violence that would be much more productive than wasting time money and effort on wire tapping, and that is just legal wire tapping, not this.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Ben Franklin said: those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
Of course, this entire thread is going to be reviewed by some pencil pusher in Northern Virginia. A little note will be made.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ever read the Book of French Military Successes? Both pages?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this one? [amazon.com]
Or maybe this one? [amazon.com]
tl;dr = you idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I say, "If one is looking for proofs in witty sayings, then he is missing the point. Rather, one should look for insight."
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world. By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.
I'd rather be dead then a slave.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Minor correction: I'd rather be dead than a slave. Being an undead slave would probably suck too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, I am baffled by the shear number of people who seem to think tearing apart the foundations the country was built upon will somehow make it more stable.
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir, are an idiot.
The probability of getting killed by a terrorist attack is so low that it shouldn't be any valid excuse to give away your privacy.
Bend over if you'd like, but please let others fight for their rights.
"Post PS": "personal PC" is just wrong
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:4, Insightful)
Total number of Americans killed in Terrorist attacks in the last decade: ~3000 (No, soldiers fighting a way don't count)
Total number of Americans killed in car accidents in the last decade: ~400,000
I have to wonder what the benefit of having "the ability to travel" is if the end result is being killed in a car accident. Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying travel, being dead means you'll never travel anyway. We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our ability to travel later since we'll still be alive to work for it.
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone has a gun to your head you're probably not very worried about the misquitos, why? Because the gun is a larger and more immediate danger. You are 2 orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack (and even those numbers are skewed by the largest terrorist act in our nation's history, the real value is probably closer to 3 orders of magnitude).
Yet we still invest hundreds of billions of dollars, give away our rights, and piss off the international community all in an effort to reduce deaths by terrorism. If we had put that same amount of money into things like high speed rail, improved roads, or enforcing drunk driving laws, we could have saved many more lives.
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:4, Insightful)
or enforcing drunk driving laws
It's interesting that you complain about a loss of civil liberties and then use drunk driving as an example of something that needs more attention. The war on drunk driving has infringed on many of our civil liberties. In no particular order:
Re: (Score:2)
Pretend for a moment that every not-completely-stupid attempt at terrorism against the US had succeeded. The shoe and underpants bombers succeed. The USS Cole sinks.
The number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks would go from roughly 3000 to roughly 10,000 (being generous to Al Qaida and the Bush administration). You'd still be looking at a fraction of the number of deaths that you see annually for car accidents.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
T
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'Effective'? HA HA HA! (Score:2)
Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been
Ha ha ha ha! Oh man that's a good one -- "effective"!
Dude, we can't stop Teh Terrorists when their own fathers call us up to narc on them! There's no way you can call our counter-terrorism efforts "effective". Certainly you wouldn't say that about our counter-terrorism prior to 9/11, since it involved violating fewer liberties and liberty = teh terrorist kills you. But yet the death toll for that period even including
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been, it's unclear exactly what your numbers are meant to show.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Re:Better Dead than Red? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seen many terrorists in your neighborhood? Don't count the ones in your family portrait now!!
So - you're willing to surrender your rights, and cower in fear of terrorists, and you've NEVER SEEN ONE!!
Cool.
Personally, I refuse to surrender my rights. Hell - every harbor town I've ever seen was populated by freaks of some kind or another, but I still walked the streets like I owned them. Chicago, New York, and LA are populated by thieves, robbers, whores, and worse - especially after the sun goes down. I should fear going out?
Funny - I don't fear what I HAVE seen, but you fear what you HAVEN'T seen.
Imagine that. Can I get you some more Kool-Aid, dude?
Heh, nice. (Score:4, Interesting)
So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.
Actually, according to TFA, all these "nonexistent emergencies" and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI's communications analysts, which one can reasonably guess hindered their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.
Oh but don't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty "Liberty or Safety" false dichotomy. I mean it's so nice and obvious if you don't think about it even the tiniest bit.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic we should probably have sent food instead of soldiers to Iraq.
Does the old saying "gimme liberty or gimme death" tell you something? There are people who value their freedom higher than their life. Granted, they become rare...
Re: (Score:2)
I can answer that one for you. The 3rd. But only because the FBI are not considered soldiers. They have in fact occupied property without the consent of the owners.
Re: (Score:2)
OK tough guy, what's your excuse? Complacency by abdication is somehow better?
Actually it's more like complacency through double nationality.
Not that it's much comfort, everywhere that isn't worse already is trying to catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
corrupt politicians...
You repeat yourself, grasshopper....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced
I'm inconvenienced when my tax money goes to bullshit like this, especially when the FBI was already having trouble paying for the wiretaps they actually needed [arstechnica.com].
If it had discovered a plot to blow up some major building and those involved were arrested the FBI would probably have been hailed as heroes and given medals.
And making up fake terrorism threats would have discovered one?
Re: (Score:2)
If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference?
That police-state tactics may be a graver threat to this republic than terrorism?
I'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want, but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is t