Yawning As Fast As We Can At The Surveillance State
What stops our rights from being eroded? Standing up for them. Speaking up. Caring enough to do both of those things or at least to support those who do.
But few Americans really seem to care that the Constitution, as of late, is being treated with all the respect of used Kleenex. And I'm not talking about the document itself, but of the rights enumerated within.
From ACLU.org, here are Alex Abdo and Patrick C. Toomey on one of the many breaches of our rights -- how the NSA is turning the Internet into a total surveillance system:
Now we know all Americans' international email is searched and saved, we can see how far the 'collect it all' mission has goneAnother burst of sunlight permeated the National Security Agency's black box of domestic surveillance last week.
According to the New York Times, the NSA is searching the content of virtually everyemail that comes into or goes out of the United States without a warrant. To accomplish this astonishing invasion of Americans' privacy, the NSA reportedly is making a copy of nearly every international email. It then searches that cloned data, keeping all of the emails containing certain keywords and deleting the rest - all in a matter of seconds.
If you emailed a friend, family member or colleague overseas today (or if, from abroad, you emailed someone in the US), chances are that the NSA made a copy of that email and searched it for suspicious information.
The NSA appears to believe this general monitoring of our electronic communications is justified because the entire process takes, in one official's words, "a small number of seconds". Translation: the NSA thinks it can intercept and then read Americans' emails so long as the intrusion is swift, efficient and silent.
That is not how the fourth amendment works.
Whether the NSA inspects and retains these messages for years, or only searches through them once before moving on, the invasion of Americans' privacy is real and immediate. There is no "five-second rule" for fourth amendment violations: the US constitution does not excuse these bulk searches simply because they happen in the blink of an eye.
The government claims that this program is authorized by a surveillance statute passed in 2008 that allows the government to target foreigners for surveillance. Although the government has frequently defended that law as a necessary tool in gathering foreign intelligence, the government has repeatedly misled the public about the extent to which the statute implicates Americans' communications.
There should no longer be any doubt: the US government has for years relied upon its authority to collect foreigners' communications as a useful cover for its sweeping surveillance of Americans' communications. The surveillance program revealed last week confirms that the interception of American communications under this law is neither "targeted" at foreigners (in any ordinary sense of that word) nor "inadvertent", as officials have repeatedly claimed.
Last week's revelations are a disturbing harbinger of future surveillance. Two months ago, this newspaper reported that the US government has been forcing American telecommunications companies to turn over the call records of every one of their customers "on an ongoing daily basis", to allow the NSA to later search those records when it has a reason to do so. The government has since defended the program, in part on the theory that Americans' right to privacy is not implicated by the initial acquisition of their phone records, only by their later searching.
That legal theory is extraordinarily dangerous because it would allow the NSA to acquire virtually all digital information today simply because it might possibly become relevant tomorrow. The surveillance program revealed by the New York Times report goes one step further still. No longer is the government simply collecting information now so that the data is available to search, should a reasonable suspicion arise at some point in the future; the NSA is searching everything now - in real time and without suspicion - merely on the chance that it finds something of interest.
That principle of pre-emptive surveillance threatens to subvert the most basic protections of the fourth amendment, which generally prohibit the government from conducting suspicion-less fishing expeditions through our private affairs. If the government is correct that it can search our every communication in case we say or type something suspicious, there is little to prevent the NSA from converting the internet into a tool of pervasive surveillance.
Because of this very real possibility, these programs should be brought out of the twilight zone of the national security state and into the daylight, so that the public can decide for itself what privacy means in a digital age.
From Forbes: 10 simple things you can do to protect your privacy.
Wondering what you all might consider "overseas".
Internet traffic hops all over. Just because your Aunt Bee lives in Mayberry, it doesn't mean that your e-mail to her doesn't go to Alice Springs, Australia and back, because the Internet routes around pluggage. It's called "internet" for a reason. It's not "inTRAnet".
Radwaste at August 14, 2013 2:35 AM
yet securing the border would be racist
Stinky the Clown at August 14, 2013 7:41 AM
In Tokyo, [Oliver] Stone characterized President Barack Obama as “a snake” for “institutionalizing” illegal spy programs, and praised the efforts of whistleblower Edward Snowden to alert people to the government’s violation of the Constitution.
“Snowden is a hero to me,” he said. “He sacrificed his well-being for the good of us all.”
http://www.stripes.com/news/oliver-stone-calls-on-japan-to-forge-ties-with-china-hails-snowden-1.234927
Stinky the Clown at August 14, 2013 9:20 AM
This terrifies me so much. This whole NSA thing. SOPA enraged me, but I thought I could fight it. I felt like I was fighting it. It was a many-headed hyrda that I fought with many others - calling and writing representatives, donating to forces that fought against it, raising awareness of what was at stake. The SOPA hydra will never truly die, but it can be kept at bay.
But this? It feels so different, bigger and far more ominous. I desperately want to fight it but I don't know how.
Elle at August 14, 2013 10:52 AM
“Again, meaningful security is done by trained intelligence workers acting on real possibilities -- evidence-based possibilities -- that a person is plotting terror”
Amy, You posted this at the end of your "How The TSA Punishes People Who Opt Out" post. Although I have only flown once in my life (25 years ago) I share your views about the TSA.
However, I am having trouble reconciling the above quote with this post.
How are evidence based possibilities of terrorism obtained today and where should the line be drawn?
Goo at August 14, 2013 11:37 AM
"In Tokyo, [Oliver] Stone characterized President Barack Obama as “a snake” for “institutionalizing” illegal spy programs."
I LOL. Oliver Stone is such a tool.
Cousin Dave at August 14, 2013 11:40 AM
I desperately want to fight it but I don't know how.
I know, Elle. I'm so glad I'm never having kids. It's the only way I can figure out how to Galt out of this rotten system. I figure the best I can do is grit my teeth and endure for the time I have left, and die knowing I haven't created any more tax mules, serfs, or debt slaves to be devoured.
I know that sounds "nihilistic" or "cynical" or "negative" to some people. I think it's simply "true," and it's the truth that's awful - not my attitude. If I feel hopeless about the situation, it's not because I thrive on feeling that way, but because I simply see no reason to think things will improve any time soon. As bad as things are, they keep getting worse, and people continue to not care.
When half the people in the country are getting a welfare check, the best they will ever do is bitch about the government in private. They will never actually stand up against the provider of their EBT cards or Social Security checks.
Pirate Jo at August 14, 2013 12:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/14/yawning_as_fast.html#comment-3854284">comment from GooGoo, terrorists on 9/11 used planes. We now have reinforced cockpits. But really, any person intelligent enough to make it in the fray here (in these comments) can probably smuggle something on a plane if they're motivated enough.
The notion that we can be perfectly safe is ridiculous.
I can't say more now because they're going to close the plane door and I have to shut this device off but I'll try to post more later.
Amy Alkon
at August 14, 2013 1:13 PM
can probably smuggle something on a plane if they're motivated enough
All I need is money.
Bribe one of the bright stars of the TSA and tell 'em it's drugs I taking thru. Leave out the minor detail that it is a couple of kilograms of C-4, a trigger and a detonator.
Whoops. My bad.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 14, 2013 2:11 PM
The least they could do is filter out the Nigerian scam emails while they are doing this...
Dwatney at August 14, 2013 5:47 PM
There is a reason that the Fourth Amendment was written as it was:
Early on in the colonies the police force at the time would go to a judge and say we want to search these homes for anything. So the judge would write a search warrant for multi-square blocks or any property within so many acres of a certain point for anything.
The collection of "metadata" is similar.
Now if the NSA caught Abdul Omar saying to Abdul Ackbar that he plans to blow up shit in the U.S. Then Abdul Omar starts calling phone numbers in the U.S. that is intelligent surveillance.
Collecting all the information on everyone, and then using it after bomb plot comes to fruition or near it means there is no probable cause to suspect you, your neighbor, or anyone else.
That is what is currently happening.
Then there is the larger argument of whether the many of the federal laws are actually legal under the Constitution. The war on drugs is pretty much illegal. The only way it runs "legally" is on the Interstate Commerce Clause. And prior to Wickard v. Filburn the federal government couldn't have said shit about or to you, if you wanted to grow pot. That was a state decision.
The line should be drawn at the most liberty for everyone and the least police state that can handled.
Because no government can guarantee security to you, your family or friends. No one can do that except you.
I hate to use the cliche -- but when seconds count 9/11 is only minutes away.
Jim P. at August 14, 2013 6:12 PM
Long long ago, in a very conservative state elementary school, we were taught about our inalienable rights. I distinctly remember the teacher explaining that if they were searching for a stolen horse, they would not be allowed to look in your jewelry box, as a horse would not fit in it, and therefore it would be an unreasonable place to search.
They probably teach nothing about our rights in schools now, let alone explain the small print. Fight the ignorance and be sure to tell the Kids all about the Bill of Rights. Even though it is mostly moot now. I don't know how else to fight it.
bmused at August 14, 2013 7:23 PM
I LOL. Oliver Stone is such a tool.
Sometimes the problem with consistent positions in favor of liberty is the company you have to keep. I was opposed to the first Gulf War and to our more recent foreign adventures; I wasn't happy about being on the same side of any issue as Paul Wellstone and Jane Fonda, but sometimes you just have to suck it up.
Grey Ghost at August 21, 2013 9:52 AM
Leave a comment