The Obama administration's war on privacy

[Jefferson23]

Monday, Sep 27, 2010 06:28 ET

By Glenn Greenwald


In early August, two dictatorial (and U.S.-allied) Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- announced a ban on the use of Blackberries because, as the BBC put it, "oth nations are unhappy that they are unable to monitor such communications via the handsets." Those two governments demand the power to intercept and monitor every single form of communication. No human interaction may take place beyond their prying ears. Since Blackberry communication data is sent directly to its server company in Canada, which refused to turn over the data to those governments, "authorities [] decided to ban Blackberry services rather than continue to allow an uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information within their borders." That's the core mindset of the Omnipotent Surveillance State: above all else, what is strictly prohibited is the ability of citizens to communicate in private; we can't have any "uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information."

That controversy generated substantial coverage in the U.S. media, which depicted it as reflective of the censorship and all-consuming surveillance powers of those undemocratic states. But the following week, The New York Times published an Op-Ed by Richard Falkenrath -- a top-level Homeland Security official in the Bush administration and current principal in the private firm of former Bush DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff -- expressing support for the UAE's Blackberry ban. Falkenrath asserted that "mong law enforcement investigators and intelligence officers , the Emirates’ decision met with approval, admiration and perhaps even a touch of envy." New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor, and Falkenrath noted, correctly, that the UAE "is in no way unique in wanting a back door into the telecommunications services used inside its borders to allow officials to eavesdrop on users." The U.S. Government is every bit as eager as the UAE and Saudi Arabia to ensure full and unfettered access to everyone's communications:


New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor . . . . Hence the envy some American intelligence officials felt about the Emirates’ decision. . . .

Companies can sometimes evade government intrusion for a while. In many cases, governments fail to keep pace with telecommunications innovation; in others, governmental intrusion into ostensibly private communications offends liberal sensibilities.

But in the end, it is governments, not private industry, that rule the airwaves and the Internet.


remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html

[leveymg]

1. This is disinformation. NSA does monitor VOIP, ISPs, telco switching hubs, Blackberry, Skype, etc.

Hasn't anyone been paying attention these last five or six years? What do you think we spent a hundred billion dollars on for Projects Groundbreaker, Pathfinder, Carnivore, TIA?

Just because some want to make it easier to get Article III warrants doesn't mean that they don't already have the technology and data storage. For years, NSA has been scooping all this up, deencrypting it, and storing it.

[Jefferson23]

2. I'm not sure what exactly you're considering disinformation.

I may pose your statement to Greenwald and see if he responds. You seem to be suggesting the cause of action to make it easier
is irrelevant within the confines of what they already do? Is that a fair/accurate interpretation of what you said?

If that is what you meant, as a result there should be no concern?

[leveymg]

3. It's disinfo to suggest that NSA doesn't already collect and store this data for

analysis and use by counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence agencies that have easy access under FISA rules and the 2008 Amendment. Dissemination to domestic law enforcement of untargeted data (very broad FISA "blanket warrant" intercepts) would still require a Title III warrant - that seems to be the only change sought here.

What the FBI seems to be seeking is a further smudging of the 4th Amendment line between FISA and Criminal Warrant (Title III) rules for access to encrypted and private network data the NSA routinely gathers and stores.

[Jefferson23]

4. So in your opinion, the change is irrelevant and poses no further concern?

[leveymg]

5. The further erosion of the 4th Amendment is immensely worrying.

What is also enormously worrying is that many people don't seem to have the foggiest notion of what the government's surveillance capabilities actually are. There seems to be little understanding about what the FISA and CALEA statutes now say are acceptable interception, storage, and dissemination protocols, and most worrying for me, that the actual procedures and practices of various national security and law enforcement agencies are not known because they are largely classified.

This Administration has done little to provide promised transparency, and has instead maintained and in some case strengthened the cloak of secrecy by the military and intelligence services, and now is clearly more hostile than ever to whistleblowers. All this is very relevant to me.

What I object to is the lack of attention to detail in some reporting and opinion pieces, particularly the failure to draw a clear distinction between technical surveillance capabilities, the limits on this posed by law, versus the actual procedures and practices of intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These distinctions are immensely important to an accurate understanding of the legal and policy changes the FBI reportedly wants.

[Jefferson23]

6. Ok, fair enough and thank you for clarifying. It's not a surprise that

many Americans are unaware of not only the details you believe Greenwald has omitted, but not even an overview is likely to be understood.

How does one express concern if they have little to no knowledge of the consequences of these erosions? They have been framed in such a way
for public consumption by the MSM when exposed at all, the government is taking measures to keep you safe..blah, blah, blah.

Frustrating situation all around.

[leveymg]

7. I believe that if I can understand this stuff, so can most others. The MSM does a miserable job of

explaining how technologies work and are used, particularly on high-stakes political and commercial subjects such as gov't spying and oil spills.

The corporate media (except for specialized professional journals) generally fail to discuss the political context of changes in law, and at the farthest end of its failure, the MSM doesn't even try to parse agency procedures (except for back-page "beat reporting") -- which, for those of us who have worked for and analyzed agency actions for a living, know are all-important, because procedures often bear no relationship and often defeat the purpose of laws they implement.

Yes, very frustrating, but that's why it's imperative that bloggers do a better job than the MSM in these matters!

[Uncle Joe]

8. I agree with your points, leveymg but recommending the OP to bring attention to the thread.

Thanks to Jefferson and thanks for your input as well.:thumbsup:

[leveymg]

9. Thnx to all.

[Jefferson23]

10. From the ACLU: Administration Seeks Easy Access To Americans' Private Online Communications

September 27, 2010
Executive Branch Spying Powers Already Too Broad, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone] or [e-mail]

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is seeking to expand the government’s ability to conduct invasive surveillance online, according to a report in The New York Times today. According to the report, the administration is expected to submit legislation to Congress early next year that would mandate that all online communications services use technologies that would make it easier for the government to collect private communications and decode encrypted messages that Americans send over texting platforms, BlackBerries, social networking sites and other “peer to peer” communications software.

The administration has argued that it is simply hoping to emulate the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which mandated that telephone companies rework their networks to be wiretap-ready. The administration’s proposal, however, differs from CALEA as it would require reconfiguring of the Internet to provide easier access to online communications. This is particularly problematic because many of the privacy protections that governed the government’s wiretapping powers when CALEA passed in 1994 no longer exist or have been significantly weakened.

For example, Congress has granted the executive branch virtually unchecked power to conduct dragnet collection of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls without a warrant or suspicion of any kind under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). The ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in July 2008 challenging the unconstitutional law, and the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Today’s reported proposal would provide the apparatus for the government to implement its overbroad surveillance authority.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Calabrese, ACLU Legislative Counsel:

“Under the guise of a technical fix, the government looks to be taking one more step toward conducting easy dragnet collection of Americans’ most private communications. Mandating that all communications software be accessible to the government is a huge privacy invasion. With concern over cybersecurity at an all-time high, this proposal will create even more security risks by mandating that our communications have a ‘backdoor’ for government use and will make our online interactions even more vulnerable.

“Congress must reject the Obama administration’s proposal to make the Internet wiretap ready.”

For more information about the ACLU’s legal challenge to the FAA, go to: www.aclu.org/faa

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/administration-seeks-easy-access-americans-private-online-communications

[avaistheone1]

11. I thought Obama wanted to go forward. This is going BACKWARDS.

:grr: