Wiretap Controversy - privacy vs. terror

[Swimmy]

Wiretap Controversy - privacy vs. terror

I just came across this tonight and thought it was an interesting article. I have not done any research, but I'm shocked that the liberal media that does all it can to inflict political damage for the president let this whole thing go.

If I have the time to do so, I will look into this more.

[dgriffin]

Quotes from Dancy’s story, as referred by Swimmy”

“In a nutshell, the United States government authorized installation of equipment that literally allows certain entities to access or monitor any digital correspondence from anyone, anywhere within the network, in real time.”
That is not new news.

“It is essentially illegal.”
I do not believe that statement to be true, but would appreciate citations.

“Representatives can't seem to agree on granting immunity to the telecom industry that worked with the federal government to illegally eavesdrop on innocent civilians.”
Thorny issue. And who would want to grant such power to a monopoly?. Of course they can’t seem to agree.

“The Bush administration's impassioned defense of the eavesdropping law is unsettling.”
Anything Bush does is unsettling to a liberal.

“ They feel it's okay to get snooped on; the overwhelming sentiment is: If you are not doing anything, then you have nothing to worry about. The perceived threat of terrorism is an underlying theme.”
Once again, citation please. Yes, I hear that all the time, but I’d like to see references.

“The Democrats' stance on this issue varies..”
That is certainly not hard to believe.

Here’s Mark Klein’s own statement on his web page:
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70621

“What is the significance and why is it important to bring these facts to light? Based on my understanding of the connections and equipment at issue, it appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data.”
Again, we read about that back in 2003 and I think the government believes they are within their legal rights, although that of course is arguable in a democracy.

And I may have missed it, but I don't see anything about Mark having suffered any "injury" so far for his efforts. Did I miss that?

[Swimmy]

Dave,
Thank you for finding that website. As I said, I didn't do any research into the article, but found it interesting.

Since Mr. Klein is a former AT&T employee, he might have been fired as a whistle-blower. But he isn't doing the suing, the Electronic Freedom Foundation is.

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein has come forward to support the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T...

That's from the link you provided.

[frankcor]

Swimmy, I suggest that as you research the topic, you google "patriot act myths," and that you then follow the Justice Department's and the ACLU's links that show up at the top of the search results to read both sides of the story. They present diametrically opposing views as one would suspect and thus you'll see very quickly the main issues. I look forward to hearing what you conclude when your research has progressed a bit.

[dgriffin]

I've been following a few such links, frankcor. Swimmy has a lot of work ahead of him. Actually, of the few I've read so far, the ACLU's appear more factual. I'm going to take a big jump here and guess that governments never decrease surveillance, rather the opposite. I'd still like to see the research, of course. Go, Swimmy!

[frankcor]

I tend to agree with your assessment Dave. However, I thought this piece from the ACLU's rebuttal to the government's claim that there have been no abuses of the Patriot Act spins a little more than that which I can be comfortable.

Ask Brandon Mayfield who was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant.

I point to the word "mistaken." Right at the top of the page, they use a mistake on the FBI's part to prove their claim of abuse? Abuse is a strong word, implying intent. Anyone familiar with the pseudo-science of fingerprints knows that mistakes are not all that uncommon. They also admit that the FBI uncovered the error in their own internal review.

And no, I am not a pod-person taking over frankcor's identity.

[Swimmy]

After February, I will happily take up this research assignment. After today, I will be disappearing for the rest of the month. I have a lot of studying and work to complete.

Looks like I stumbled across a potential powder keg.

[frankcor]

This powder keg will continue to explode, I fear. Even the Senate Democrats agree that the provisions of the Patriot Act are not unconstitutional. They are currently holding out only because the administration insists that the telephone companies be granted immunity from civil lawsuits if they provide information to the government that is subsequently misused or abused. It seems logical but the trial attorney lobby is especially powerful on that side of the aisle.

[nhcitizen18]

One of my all time favorite quotes

"Any Nation that will give up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose both"
-Benjamin Franklin-

There has be a balance on this issue somewhere that does not infringe on civil liberties. Unfortunately I believe the sources you cited above are far too caught up in their own dogma and ideology to ever achieve that happy medium.

[frankcor]

NCCitizen, I purposefully suggested those two sources as an attempt to bound, or frame if you will, the argument. I think most reasonable people understand that the final solution will fall somewhere in between the two.

[concerned]

The White House is even considiering the use of waterbarding in certain situations as legal.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US_mulls_using_harsh_techniques_to_interrogate_terrorists/articleshow/2762362.cms

WASHINGTON: The United States may use waterboarding to question terrorism suspects in the future, the White House said on Wednesday, rejecting the widely held belief that the practice amounts to torture.

"It will depend upon circumstances," spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding "the belief that an attack might be imminent, that could be a circumstance that you would definitely want to consider."

"The President will listen to the considered judgement of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgement of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique," he said.

thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/fratto-waterboarding/

[dgriffin]

I hope Clipper lets us know if he gets water boarded. I know when the FBI shows up at his place to ask the names of people on this seditious forum, he'll keep mum and never break. Swimmy, go and study. We're going to need a good attorney by the time you graduate.

[concerned]

yes swimmy study hard

[frankcor]

Heh, I served 9 years on a school board. Waterboarding would be a refreshing change after that.

Bring it on.

[Clipper]

The only waterboarding I would be into, is knee boarding behind a fast boat, haha. Hell, I did the simulated POW camp in survival training before going overseas in hthe 60's. I am not that tough anymore. If they were to interrogate me today, I would have to give it up. I would holler loud and clear, LOS JIBAROS AND JDUGES DID IT, I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Haha!

Sory guys! Swimmy will defend your cases. We'll send ya oreos and a pack of smokes once a month at Gitmo.