There Are Many Reasons Not To Give The NSA The Power To Spy On Your Info
from the here-are-just-a-few dept
We were just noting that the Senate is undergoing a fight concerning whether or not the Cybersecurity Act is going to go anywhere, with much of the fight being a tug of war over your privacy. Senators Franken, Paul and Schumer are supporting an amendment to add in more privacy protections. Senators McCain and Hutchison are looking to take away privacy protections and give the NSA much more power to violate your privacy and access your private info, with less oversight and without it having anything to do with cybersecurity.The folks over at EFF have put together a nice list of reasons why the NSA cannot be trusted with your data. There are a bunch of reasons, but here are a few:
- NSA has a dark history of violating Americans’ constitutional rights
In the 1960’s, a Congressional investigation, led by four-term Senator Frank Church, found that the NSA had engaged in widespread and warrantless spying on Americans citizens. Church was so stunned at what he found, he remarked that the National Security Agency’s "capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything." (emphasis added) The investigation led to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provided stronger privacy protections for Americans’ communications—that is, until it was weakened by the USA-PATRIOT Act and other reactions to 9/11.
- NSA has continued its warrantless wiretapping scandal
In 2005, the New York Times revealed that the NSA set up a massive warrantless wiretapping program shortly after 9/11, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and several federal laws. This was later confirmed by virtually every major media organization in the country. It led to Congressional investigations and several ongoing lawsuits, including EFF’s. Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to grant telecom companies retroactive immunity for participating in illegal spying and severely weaken privacy safeguards for Americans communicating overseas.Since the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) passed, the NSA has continued collecting emails of Americans. A 2009 New York Times investigation described how a “significant and systemic” practice of "overcollection" of communications resulted in the NSA’s intercepting millions of purely domestic emails and phone calls between Americans. In addition, documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU, although heavily redacted, revealed "that violations [of the FAA and the Constitution] continued to occur on a regular basis through at least March 2010"— the last month anyone has public data for.
- NSA recently admitted to violating the Constitution.
Just last week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—which oversees the NSA—begrudgingly acknowledged that "on at least one occasion" the secret FISA court "held that some collection… used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Wired called it a "federal sidestep of a major section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," and it confirmed the many reports over the last few years: the NSA has violated the Constitution.
In the meantime, we're still waiting for someone (anyone?) to tell us exactly why this bill is needed without resorting to hyperbole about planes falling out of the sky. If there's an existing problem with infosharing, what is it? What law, today, is blocking this kind of infosharing? Until the government can explain that, it seems weird that they're pushing for much greater spying power by the NSA and fewer privacy rights. How can they defend this when they can't even point to what the roadblocks are?
Filed Under: al franken, charles schumer, cybersecurity, john mccain, kay bailey hutchison, privacy, rand paul
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
US Govt: YES, WE CAN!
And pls don't try to put the blame on Obama or the Democrats. It's a generalized disease. Your politicians, with very few exceptions, either don't care about your Constitution anymore or are too clueless to see it's being and will be violated through these moronic bills.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No reason needed
Because none of your business. WE will tell you what is necessary and appropriate to keep you safe. Don't worry your pretty little head.
Sincerely, Your Government
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
NSA has a dark history of violating Americans’ constitutional rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YonLbe_DiFI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ex1aXWois
What? You don't trust us? So sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zcczeuu7iA
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What these groups really need to be doing is helping to identify and promote viable candidates/parties outside the democratic-republican power structure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hello? Is there anyone out there paying attention to the fact they're ignoring the laws already out there?
Call me cynical to believe this bill won't be ignored as well.
Here's a better idea: disband the NSA and the FBI. Then, form an institution under the direct leadership of the people.
Otherwise, these requests waste my time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
We need to get a real third party going or we need to know who to Vote for who is not already been bought and sold.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
just a couple of random, harmless thoughts
Because they're fucking scared. Pathetically fucking scared. And they want you to be just as scared, and, for the most part, they're doing a fantastic fucking job of it aren't they? Bogey-man this, bogey-man that, but, but really, there are THREATS!. No shit? No. There are threats and then there is fundamentalist bullshit.
How about some god damn preparation, training, education and readiness?
My government is already far, far too powerful and my representatives are far, far too old, too rich and/or too self-serving to give two shits about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights much less adequately represent.
Protection! Security! How about you fuck the fuck off and let somebody blow my ass up and THEN tell me or any of my relatives that happened to miss the blast I told you so because I really, really do not want to have to "I told you so" about this overwhelmingly clear and consistent march towards fascism and the role reversal of serving government whims, tricks and treats.
Fuck. Your. Security. Laws. and a bunch-o-others as well. You fat, greedy, mostly white, tax-teet suckling fuckers.
I want good government not this reactionary craptastik display of 'fuck-all-y'all'ed-ness, all of this "I'm right and you're not" crap. Bitches.
Drug laws - flawed.
Defense budgets - flawed.
"Morals" - fuck you and your feelings
Education budget - ? they still have some budget?
Health budget - Free market! (works good don't it - fucks)
Infrastructure - well, if we need jobs apparently...
Invest in our future or don't bloody bother with security and defense - invert that shit and get it right.
In God We Trust - All Others We Monitor .. you guys thought that was a joke?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The NSA has always spied upon everyone
The NSA has always spied upon everyone and will continue to do so. The law is not relevant.
Just remember, if you want a human a the NSA to read your email just insert weaponized anthrax into it somewhere.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The NSA has always spied upon everyone
Every email to your parents , kid or friends
Subject line : Weaponized Anthrax
Body :
Just want to know if all is good at home....
after a couple of million emails they may get the point.
Not that they will stop.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Do we have a third alternative?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
They HAVE to do it!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's all in the name...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And exactly how would be possible? The direct leadership of what people?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Do we have a third alternative?
Like I said, if it comes down to government versus corporations, I pick neither.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Eh, I'll think of something eventually
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If you peep into someone's house, you're a peeping tom.
If you follow someone around, watching them, you're a stalker.
If someone secretly infiltrates another nation's government in order to accumulate info, that person is a spy.
If a government agency circumvents the Constitution and spies on its own citizens...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
cyber security
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@anonymous coward
Meanwhile, what do we mean by "privacy"? The term doesn't describe (to my satisfaction) the secret spying on communications that can lead to pre-emption of resistant action and suppression of protest in advance by shutting down groups. There's bedroom privacy, there are personal conversations, there's keeping my bank balance or medical records private, etc, and then there is the "privacy" of protesters' planning, to protect their planning from being pre-empted as soon as known by the police/military/corporate opposition. "Terrorists" are being substituted for "protesters" in the public mind. Mil-intel and police can surveil the phone and email exchanges and plans of protest/resistance groups and pre-empt their actions. Yet few in the press or on blogs are discussing this dimension of the corporate/NSA surveillance threat that can exercise control and pre-emptive suppression like the old Soviet Union or the old Third Reich. Why not?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idCABRE95A0T820130611?irpc=932
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idCABRE95A0T820130611?irpc=932
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply