Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,053 posts)
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:05 AM May 2013

U.S. Weighs Wider Wiretap Laws to Cover Online Activity

Source: NYT

The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.

While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention.

Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/politics/obama-may-back-fbi-plan-to-wiretap-web-users.html

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. Weighs Wider Wiretap Laws to Cover Online Activity (Original Post) alp227 May 2013 OP
This administration becomes more appalling and disgusting by the day villager May 2013 #1
+1 MotherPetrie May 2013 #5
Not on our side. FiveGoodMen May 2013 #20
Nope. This administration responds to its owners, and they ain't us villager May 2013 #21
"resolving years of internal debate" delrem May 2013 #2
Well, one sure way to get the terrorists to stop "hating us for our freedoms" magellan May 2013 #3
the bush agenda under new management nt msongs May 2013 #4
MORE HAYSTACKS! pansypoo53219 May 2013 #6
Just what a RepubliCON Named W would do. n/t fasttense May 2013 #7
There no longer seems any point in protesting America's descent into panzerfaust May 2013 #8
Obama doesn't get it! GeorgeGist May 2013 #9
He gets it just fine IDemo May 2013 #13
Will 0bama stand up to the fbi - Laugh of the day! byeya May 2013 #10
I wouldn't be John2 May 2013 #11
Not only wiretapping but setting you up for some bogus conspiracy or "terrorist" charge. I have byeya May 2013 #14
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OnyxCollie May 2013 #12
National security state. JDPriestly May 2013 #15
The really ridiculous thing about spending all this money to set up surveillance systems ... brett_jv May 2013 #16
Ever get the feeling that you're being watched? davidthegnome May 2013 #17
K&R woo me with science May 2013 #18
LIES U CAN BELIEVE IN blkmusclmachine May 2013 #19
Hope! Change! Constitutional scholar! woo me with science May 2013 #22

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
20. Not on our side.
Wed May 8, 2013, 05:06 PM
May 2013

Never was.

Never will be.

We were given a choice between two enemies and one of them was disguised.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
2. "resolving years of internal debate"
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:18 AM
May 2013

I call bullshit on this. There was no "debate" on this, not any that the US gov't heard.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
3. Well, one sure way to get the terrorists to stop "hating us for our freedoms"
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:47 AM
May 2013

...is to take those freedoms away.

 

panzerfaust

(2,818 posts)
8. There no longer seems any point in protesting America's descent into
Wed May 8, 2013, 07:14 AM
May 2013

... a surveillance state.

Just am losing heart as everyone seems to be becoming lost in the toxic fog of lies, corruption and intimidation that has been "our" government this century.

Recent news articles, in the wake of the Boston bombers, strongly suggest that ALL digital communications are currently being intercepted and stored by "our" government - for example an article in the Guardian mentions:

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".

On Thursday night, Clemente [retired FBI counterterrorism agent] again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston


It is such bitter irony that this zipping up of the body-bag entombing American Civil Liberties is being done not by the fascist and capitalistic right - but by a Democratic president who is not only our nation's first Black president, but who is a former Constitutional scholar. How does Oblahblah sleep at night?



Days like this, I am glad that I am old.
 

John2

(2,730 posts)
11. I wouldn't be
Wed May 8, 2013, 09:31 AM
May 2013

surprised if some of those neocons are wiretapping me because some of the things I have said against their warmongering Policies. Next thing you know they will be calling me a Terrorist like they was spying on MLK.

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
14. Not only wiretapping but setting you up for some bogus conspiracy or "terrorist" charge. I have
Wed May 8, 2013, 11:08 AM
May 2013

to think they will do something nasty with the information and share it with people of ill-will, to say the least.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
15. National security state.
Wed May 8, 2013, 11:56 AM
May 2013

I believe it exists.

But where was it when the Castro brothers kidnapped three girls, imprisoned them in their house and then hoisted the Cuban flag on their front porch?

Where was it when the two brothers in Boston planned their killing spree?

Where was it in Newtown?

What was it doing in Aurora?

And most puzzling, why didn't it prevent the shooting of Gabby Giffords in Tucson?

What does our security state do? If it is violating the privacy of people who haven't committed crimes (against all of our civil rights traditions), what is it looking for?

Seems to miss a lot, like all the shootings in my area.

I wonder if it's like the German STASI, a big bureaucracy to keep right-wing, uncreative people busy.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
16. The really ridiculous thing about spending all this money to set up surveillance systems ...
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:12 PM
May 2013

besides, you know, pissing all over the Constitution ... is that once it becomes common knowledge that this capability/system exists, it will become mostly useless in the fight against terrorism.

Any 'serious' criminals (like terrorists) will simply cease to use these forms of digital communications to discuss illegal activities, or if they do, they'll develop systems of codes to defeat the tracking abilities. At least (so far) we're not at the point where the government can open up every single piece of mail, so all this system is likely to do is force criminals to use the old fashion communications methods like the US Mail. International terrorists aren't likely to be so dumb as to send each other emails or have facebook chats, using their OWN accounts, on their 'home computers', that spell out their nefarious plans when they know every digital communication could be monitored.

Not to mention, it's very easy for a person to take their laptop to a 'hotspot' (i.e. not their home account) and log in to a anonymous/fake account using any number of email or chat providers. Thus, the idea that the FBI could successfully 'wire-tap' an individual who didn't want to be monitored is frankly ridiculous on it's face.

What the FBI is REALLY asking for ... is to be able to monitor ALL communications on the internet. The whole 'wire-tapping' thing, like, using warrants and such ... is just a ruse. They want access to EVERYthing.

But ultimately all this is going to be useful for is to bust regular American citizens, talking about drug deals over the phone or internet, or maybe to help convict a bank robber or two. It will also be used to spy on political enemies of the 1%.

I really, really detest the fact that Obama is 'going along' with the creation of a permanent surveillance state in this country. Esp. when, as mentioned, he's supposedly a Constitutional Scholar.

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
17. Ever get the feeling that you're being watched?
Wed May 8, 2013, 04:38 PM
May 2013

Well... you probably are. Damn. Too much more of this and you won't even have the right to taking a piss in private. The government will want to monitor that, too. Perhaps, some day in the future, every citizen will be required to have an ID implanted in their body, that will monitor everything from whether or not we rob a bank, to how often we fart, to whether or not we like pop tarts...

It's not just for enforcement purposes though, or for protecting the 1%. Imagine how much advertisers and/or corporations could profit from this type of legislation.

Well, just so all the government agents reading this know, I'm giving you the finger. Right now. And you smell.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. Weighs Wider Wiretap...