Spying on Americans

[cjr72]

Obama Administration Says It Can Spy On Americans, But Can't Tell You What Law Allows It | Techdirt

Obama Administration Says It Can Spy On Americans, But Can't Tell You What Law Allows It

from the secret-laws! dept

Remember how President Obama, while campaigning, promised to reject the questionable spying practices of the federal government of President Bush? Yeah, forget all that. Over the past two years, we've seen time and time again that he's actually extended those abuses even further. The latest to come out is that the Justice Department is now claiming that the FBI has the right to get phone records on any call made from inside the US to an international number without any oversight. You may recall a few years back that there was a similar controversy, when it came out that the FBI would regularly just call up phone companies and ask for records -- despite the fact that this violates certain laws designed to protect consumer privacy. Sometimes, they would just use post-it notes.

Apparently, a year ago, McClatchy newspapers put in a FOIA request, asking for the details of a particular Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that was mentioned in the (previously released, but highly redacted) report that showed how frequently the FBI abused the law in this manner. The OLC took its sweet time responding, but finally responded, and in the cover letter admitted that the Obama administration believes it is perfectly legal for the FBI to route around the in-place oversight for getting access to such records and claimed that the law said so.

Which law says so? Oh, see, that they can't say. Yes, the part of the letter that explains which law lets the FBI get these records without oversight was redacted.

It's a secret law! And here I thought, in the US, if the government was going to base actions on a particular law, at the very least, they were supposed to tell you what law. Apparently, the Justice Department under the Obama administration does not believe that to be the case.

Basically, what this means is that the federal government believes that it's free to request information without first getting court approval -- and without telling the public what law says they're allowed to get this information. That's not what the laws on the books seem to say at all. But, of course, big telcos such as AT&T, who are so closely tied to the government, are going to roll over and give the government such info (or, perhaps, give them direct access to the info), even if it violates other laws. Why do you think President Obama voted to support giving telcos retroactive immunity on this issue, while he was running for President despite having earlier said he was against it? Now that he's in power, he apparently is perfectly happy to let the FBI twist the clear intentions of the law to spy on Americans without oversight, and then to refuse to reveal what law he's relying on to make such spying on Americans without oversight legal.

McClatchy quotes Michael German, a former FBI agent, who now works for the ACLU pointing out the obvious:

"It's wrong that they're withholding a legal rationale that has to do with the authorities of the FBI to collect information that affects the rights of American citizens here and abroad.... The law should never be secret. We should all understand what rules we're operating under and particularly when it comes to an agency that has a long history of abuse in its collection activities." ​

And so far, it doesn't seem like most people care. About the only politician who really seems concerned about this is Senator Wyden, who says this level of secrecy "is a serious problem" and he's "continuing to press the executive branch to disclose more information to the public about what their government thinks the law means." Once again, kudos to Senator Wyden for being one of a very small number of politicians who seems to consistently be concerned about the rights of individuals. But it's sad that the rest of our elected officials aren't up in arms about this. The government shouldn't be spying on Americans, and if it is, it should at least have to tell Americans what law it's basing that decision on.

Hope and change?

 

[Njcellgeek74]

It is scary to think that our government can delve into our personal affairs without just cause. It is a severe violation of privacy. I have heard that calls are monitered for "trigger" words and recorded if a certain combination of said words are used in one conversation. Am I surprised? No. The IRS can bust down your door and remove everything you own for not paying income taxes. Why shouldn't they listen in on calls, read emails and texts, etc. Regardless of what Obama says, it will remain this way as long as the Feds feel justified and we go along with it. Nerve-wracking, isn't it?

 

[Dark Jedi]

This is nothing new. Everyones government spies on their people. They want to spy on me then more power to them as I have nothing to hide, but maybe my extensive porno collection lol.

 

[Martimus]

President Bush signed a Presidential order to authorize this type of behavior back in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

Beyond that the US Government had been running the Echelon program since the 1960's to listen to and spy on telephone conversations.

 

[Njcellgeek74]

This is nothing new. Everyones government spies on their people. They want to spy on me then more power to them as I have nothing to hide, but maybe my extensive porno collection lol.

Lol!!! If they eavesdrop on my conversations, they deserve what they overhear. XD

 

[EarlyMon]

This is nothing new. Everyones government spies on their people. They want to spy on me then more power to them as I have nothing to hide, but maybe my extensive porno collection lol.

That so far afield it's not even wrong.

The idea that only people with things to hide would need fear government invasion of privacy is lofty - and that's the problem, right there.

There's something even loftier - it's the expectation of privacy for its own sake.

 

[nlsme]

Lemme get this straight, you dont want government in business' affairs, but, when it comes to personal privacy you say "more power to them"?

 

[Dark Jedi]

That so far afield it's not even wrong.

The idea that only people with things to hide would need fear government invasion of privacy is lofty - and that's the problem, right there.

There's something even loftier - it's the expectation of privacy for its own sake.

Its my personal opinion of what I said. So its not up to you to pass judgment on wither its right or wrong. If the government wants to spy on you they will and nothing you can do about it as you will never know that they did it in the first place. I bet we all been spied on at one time or the other.

 

[EarlyMon]

I got spied on for a living.

And my personal opinion is that your personal opinion is wrong.

You have every right to your opinion - I have total respect for that. I'm from the school the school that says I may disagree with what you say, but I'll give my life in defense of your right to say it.

My opinion is equally valid - as I find your own to be as inherently judgmental as mine. If you think about it - opposing opinions tend to be that way by definition.

 

[Adauth]

That so far afield it's not even wrong.

The idea that only people with things to hide would need fear government invasion of privacy is lofty - and that's the problem, right there.

There's something even loftier - it's the expectation of privacy for its own sake.

Thank you for saying this, so I did not have to.

It is NOT ok for the government to spy on you. Period.

 

[Adauth]

This is nothing new. Everyones government spies on their people. They want to spy on me then more power to them as I have nothing to hide, but maybe my extensive porno collection lol.

Here we go again....This type of thinking is so sad

 

[Dark Jedi]

No it isn't sad as how will you stop them from doing this. Write an angry letter to Congress? We can't tell our government what they can or can't do. We can't even find out what they do behind closed doors. Oh you will say we can vote them out. But still the machine still moves fwd. I guess we could revolt like Egypt did. Every freedom and right comes with a cost. Remember the old saying nothing is truely free. Sooner or later you have to pay.

So if you found out the government spied on you. What course of action would you take to rectify it.

 

[EarlyMon]

So if you found out the government spied on you. What course of action would you take to rectify it.

By social contract, I expect the NSA to spy on me - as an anonymous signal source - unless and until I set off triggers. By the same token, I expect the IRS to be automatically aware of certain financial transactions.

Aside from that class - were I to find that I was the specific target of surveillance, then I'd get a lawyer - either to defend my rights upon discovery that it was lawfully warranted - or to assert my rights against government invasion of privacy.

In the latter case, I'd also alert every media outlet I could think of, for fear of being made a grease spot in the dead of night.

I'd like to think that Watergate did indeed count for more in my lifetime than just the -gate meme for every lazy reporter to use.