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 bureaus 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 Departments 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
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Never was.
Never will be.
We were given a choice between two enemies and one of them was disguised.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
delrem
(9,688 posts)I call bullshit on this. There was no "debate" on this, not any that the US gov't heard.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...is to take those freedoms away.
msongs
(67,441 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,996 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)... 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.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)His it ain't the same as our it, though.
byeya
(2,842 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)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)to think they will do something nasty with the information and share it with people of ill-will, to say the least.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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)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)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.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a fucking scam it all was.