Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Why we should be afraid of warantless spying

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why we should be afraid of warantless spying

    [QUOTE][B]More FBI Privacy Violations Confirmed[/B]
    By LARA JAKES JORDAN, The Associated Press
    2008-03-05 17:51:42.0
    Current rank: # 38 of 10,807

    WASHINGTON -
    The FBI improperly used national security letters in 2006 to obtain personal data on Americans during terror and spy investigations, Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday.

    Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the privacy breach by FBI agents and lawyers occurred a year before the bureau enacted sweeping new reforms to prevent future lapses.

    Details on the abuses will be outlined in the coming days in a report by the Justice Department's inspector general.

    The report is a follow-up to an audit by the inspector general a year ago that found the FBI demanded personal data on people from banks, telephone and Internet providers and credit bureaus without official authorization and in non-emergency circumstances between 2003 and 2005.

    Mueller, noting senators' concerns about Americans' civil and privacy rights, said the new report "will identify issues similar to those in the report issued last March." The similarities, he said, are because the time period of the two studies "predates the reforms we now have in place."

    He added: "We are committed to ensuring that we not only get this right, but maintain the vital trust of the American people."

    Mueller offered no additional details. Several other Justice Department and FBI officials familiar with this year's findings have said privately the upcoming report will show the letters were wrongly used at a similar rate as during the previous three years.

    In contrast to the outrage by Congress and civil liberties groups after last year's report was issued, Mueller's disclosure drew no criticism from senators during just over two hours of testimony during Wednesday's hearing.

    Speaking before the FBI chief, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urged Mueller to be more vigilant in correcting what he called "widespread illegal and improper use of national security letters."

    "Everybody wants to stop terrorists. But we also, though, as Americans, we believe in our privacy rights and we want those protected," Leahy said. "There has to be a better chain of command for this. You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he'd like to obtain Americans' records, bank records or anything else and do it just because they want to."

    National security letters, as outlined in the USA Patriot Act, are administrative subpoenas used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases. They allow the FBI to require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers without a judge's approval.

    The number of national security letters issued by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law in 2001, according to last year's report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. His review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration.

    Former FBI agent Michael German, now a national security adviser for the American Civil Liberties Union, said Mueller's admission that the bureau violated laws for the fourth year in a row underscores the need to have a judge sign off on the subpoenas.

    "The credibility factor shows there needs to be outside oversight," German said after the hearing.

    German also cast doubt on FBI reforms to prevent future abuses. "There were guidelines before, and there were laws before, and the FBI violated those laws," he said. "And the idea that new guidelines would make a difference, I think cuts against rationality."

    Fine's earlier report, issued March 9, 2007, blamed agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct.

    It uncovered thousands of examples of the FBI's failure to properly report the number of national security letters as required by law. The 2007 report also identified instances where agents did not get proper authorization or made otherwise improper requests for information from telephone companies and Internet service providers.

    In 2005, for example, Fine's office found more than 1,000 violations within 19,000 FBI requests to obtain 47,000 records. Each letter issued may contain several requests. Justice Department and FBI auditors said last summer that many of the abuses were caused by companies that gave more information than the FBI sought.

    The FBI and Justice Department have since enacted guidelines and sternly reminded FBI agents to carefully follow the rules governing the national security letters. They caution agents to review all data before it is transferred into FBI databases to make sure that only the information specifically requested is used.
    [/QUOTE]

    This is exactly why the FISA laws are in place and why we should never give in to irrational fear and allow the govt to spy on us w/o a warrant

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [IMG]http://www.b00mb0x.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/dj_herr_doktor_goatstones_-_black_helicopters_front.JPG[/IMG]

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2413624][IMG]http://www.b00mb0x.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/dj_herr_doktor_goatstones_-_black_helicopters_front.JPG[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Not sure i understand?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2413615]This is exactly why the FISA laws are in place and why we should never give in to irrational fear and allow the govt to spy on us w/o a warrant[/QUOTE]

    I have nothing to hide. So this doesn't bother me. If my overseas phonecall is tapped, or I have to get to the airport earlier, such is life.
    Plus the article states that many of the problems come from companies giving additional information than was asked. Just a matter of working the kinks out of the system. The Patriot Act is a good thing. So we will agree to disagree on this one.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2413671]I have nothing to hide. So this doesn't bother me. If my overseas phonecall is tapped, or I have to get to the airport earlier, such is life.
    Plus the article states that many of the problems come from companies giving additional information than was asked. Just a matter of working the kinks out of the system. The Patriot Act is a good thing. So we will agree to disagree on this one.[/QUOTE]

    I have to agree with you on this one.

    i think the Patriot Act is good and since I have nothing to hide, let them listen to my boring conversations.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2413678]I have to agree with you on this one.

    i think the Patriot Act is good and since I have nothing to hide, let them listen to my boring conversations.[/QUOTE]

    Sounds great.

    I also suppose that of the telecom companies have nothing to hide, they should not be worried about not getting immunity. I've got nothing to hide...they have nothing to hide. Sounds like a win-win...

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, sometimes I can pick up my neighbors conversations on my cordless phone. Also, not all of my neighbors are bright enough to secure their wireless PC networks. Assuming they're even dumber, they may even have file sharing turned on.


    Spying on people isn't exactly rocket science and I seriously doubt the govt wants to hear your assinine conversations.


    With all the dipwads walking around talking on their cell phones (about NOTHING) in public, I only WISH i didn't have to "spy" on them.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2413707]Well, sometimes I can pick up my neighbors conversations on my cordless phone. Also, not all of my neighbors are bright enough to secure their wireless PC networks. Assuming they're even dumber, they may even have file sharing turned on.


    Spying on people isn't exactly rocket science and I seriously doubt the govt wants to hear your assinine conversations.


    With all the dipwads walking around talking on their cell phones (about NOTHING) in public, I only WISH i didn't have to "spy" on them.[/QUOTE]

    This may be off topic a bit but the guy who lives two doors down from me just graduated as a network engineer and his wireless network has the default name, it broadcasts the SSID and is completely unsecured.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2413696]Sounds great.

    I also suppose that of the telecom companies have nothing to hide, they should not be worried about not getting immunity. I've got nothing to hide...they have nothing to hide. Sounds like a win-win...[/QUOTE]

    sounds like a win - win to me too. :D

  10. #10
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like

    Nothing to Hide...at least that's what you think.

    I find it very alarming that people dont care if the government listens into their boring conversations. But here is the point. They may start by using the Patriot Act to listen for terrorist conversations. This is just the first step down a slipery slope which may end up having people arrested for their non terrorist conversations.

    Who's to say they wont come get you if your BSing with your friend and make some off color comment. "Boy i hate this person, they really piss me off. sometimes I just want to slap the dog **** out of them." Now in the grand scheme of things you are not going to make terrorist watch lists, however, you have just now committed assault. The threatening of bodily harm to another person. If you were to say this to another person in front of a Police officer, he/she could take you to jail.

    What is the limit? Where does this stop? If the statement above was a onetime quote that just happened cuz you were mad, then all right. IT does happen. But now with someone listening in, are they under any legal obligation to turn you in?

    I dont like the idea of any law enforcement officer listening to my private conversations w/o a warrant. The difference is that if they have a warrant there is enough evidence there to support that I am doing something wrong and need to have the tap.

    This grants too much power to specific individuals who if they have some hate for you to make your life very miserable.

    As for the terrorists, they may get away, but I think the rights of the individual outweigh the security of the whole. It is a glitch in our system, yes, but I would rather let 5 guilty men walk away than to put on innocent man in prison.

    Thank you

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2413720]This may be off topic a bit but the guy who lives two doors down from me just graduated as a network engineer and his wireless network has the default name, it broadcasts the SSID and is completely unsecured.[/QUOTE]

    Yikes.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ArizonaJetsFan;2413734][B]As for the terrorists, they may get away, but I think the rights of the individual outweigh the security of the whole[/B]. It is a glitch in our system, yes, but I would rather let 5 guilty men walk away than to put on innocent man in prison.

    Thank you[/QUOTE]



    The Liberal mind in action.


    Would you mind the govt listening in on Ibeen Pharteen's conversation if it saved 3000+ lives?

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Monmouth County
    Posts
    2,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2413671]I have nothing to hide. So this doesn't bother me. If my overseas phonecall is tapped, or I have to get to the airport earlier, such is life.
    Plus the article states that many of the problems come from companies giving additional information than was asked. Just a matter of working the kinks out of the system. The Patriot Act is a good thing. So we will agree to disagree on this one.[/QUOTE]

    I also agree with you on this. I could care less if they listen to every call going on...they would catch more than just terrorists and to the person that says we need to be careful of making innocuous comments and getting arrested, they'd be much too busy with the actual terrorists they found, not to mention drug dealers etc.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ArizonaJetsFan;2413734]I find it very alarming that people dont care if the government listens into their boring conversations. But here is the point. They may start by using the Patriot Act to listen for terrorist conversations. This is just the first step down a slipery slope which may end up having people arrested for their non terrorist conversations.

    Who's to say they wont come get you if your BSing with your friend and make some off color comment. "Boy i hate this person, they really piss me off. sometimes I just want to slap the dog **** out of them." Now in the grand scheme of things you are not going to make terrorist watch lists, however, you have just now committed assault. The threatening of bodily harm to another person. If you were to say this to another person in front of a Police officer, he/she could take you to jail.

    What is the limit? Where does this stop? If the statement above was a onetime quote that just happened cuz you were mad, then all right. IT does happen. But now with someone listening in, are they under any legal obligation to turn you in?

    I dont like the idea of any law enforcement officer listening to my private conversations w/o a warrant. The difference is that if they have a warrant there is enough evidence there to support that I am doing something wrong and need to have the tap.

    This grants too much power to specific individuals who if they have some hate for you to make your life very miserable.

    As for the terrorists, they may get away, but I think the rights of the individual outweigh the security of the whole. It is a glitch in our system, yes, but I would rather let 5 guilty men walk away than to put on innocent man in prison.

    Thank you[/QUOTE]


    I agree that it is a very slippery slope and it needs to be strictly regulated so it is only uses for terrorism.

    If one of those five guilty people strapped on a bomb and walked into a playground is it still worth it?

    I feel the complete opposite, better to put a one innocent person in jail then to let one guilty one get away.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2413615][QUOTE]Details on the abuses will be outlined in the coming days in a report by the Justice Department's inspector general.

    The report is a follow-up to an audit by the inspector general a year ago that found the FBI demanded personal data on people from banks, telephone and Internet providers and credit bureaus without official authorization and in non-emergency circumstances between 2003 and 2005.[/QUOTE]

    This is exactly why the FISA laws are in place and why we should never give in to irrational fear and allow the govt to spy on us w/o a warrant[/QUOTE]

    I will reserve my judgement till we hear the specific "abuses", and the specific harm they caused to specific people.

    If no one was actually harmed, i.e. yes the Govt. got info on them, but either did nothign with it, or did nothing to harm the person with it, then this is a non issue IMO, especially since the Govt. themselves have clearly admitted error, and are taking steps to correct the problem.

    Seems to me we have a known, documented problem, caught by the system, and being corrected.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2413767]...better to put a one innocent person in jail then to let one guilty one get away.[/QUOTE]

    So...would it be better to change our legal system to guilty until proven innocent? That way we are sure to get a few guilty people...we would just have to weed out the innocent ones.

    Maybe terrorism is God's hand of justice. Think about it. A bomb explodes in a crowded market in Paris. Kills 100 people. But it also takes out a wife beater, 2 child molesters, 1 murderer, 3 rapists and 2 drug dealers. Was it worth it? How low would the innocent death toll have to be to be worth it?

    Just playing Devil's advocate...but what if that innocent person thrown in prison was a brother. And once in system, was butt-raped and shanked by an MS-13 gang member. Would it still be worth it?

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,450
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2413756]The Liberal mind in action.


    Would you mind the govt listening in on [B]Ibeen Pharteen's [/B]conversation if it saved 3000+ lives?[/QUOTE]

    Is there a way to identify Hous Bin Pharteen?

    And what can you tell us about I-Zheet M'Drurz?

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Big L;2413811]Is there a way to identify Hous Bin Pharteen?

    And what can you tell us about I-Zheet M'Drurz?[/QUOTE]


    I think they are friends of M'Balz Es-hari

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,905
    Post Thanks / Like
    This whole situation really is sad.

    The government uses the "threat" of terrorism to spy on its own citizens, and most people follow blindly like sheep. Somehow it has become acceptable to the population for the government to invade the privacy of all in hopes of finding that 1 in a billion terrorist related phone call.

    It's not a slippery slope...it's the ****ing Grand Canyon and we've gone right over the edge because of fear and propoganda.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's great you have nothing to hide, but a huge problem you are all forgetting about is that there are people out there who may have a problem with you.

    Law enforcement relies heavily on informants and those informants are not always honest.

    Law enforcement relies heavily on intrepreting conversations, meaning 10 shirts doesn't actually mean 10 shirts it is coded conversation.

    You may end up on the losing end and if you don't care about the checks and balances of gov't don't cry when you are locked for a few days before the gov't figures out they were wrong about you.

    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2413671]I have nothing to hide. So this doesn't bother me. If my overseas phonecall is tapped, or I have to get to the airport earlier, such is life.
    Plus the article states that many of the problems come from companies giving additional information than was asked. Just a matter of working the kinks out of the system. The Patriot Act is a good thing. So we will agree to disagree on this one.[/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us