House Approves Sweeping, Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

[HardOCP News]

I have to run down to the store and stock up on some tinfoil. While I am gone, you should probably read this.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which is expiring at year’s end, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

 

[c3141hf]

Excerpt from Chapter 2 of For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard

While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.

Throughout the ages, the emperor has had a series of pseudo-clothes provided for him by the nation’s intellectual caste. In past centuries, the intellectuals informed the public that the State or its rulers were divine, or at least clothed in divine authority, and therefore what might look to the naive and untutored eye as despotism, mass murder, and theft on a grand scale was only the divine working its benign and mysterious ways in the body politic. In recent decades, as the divine sanction has worn a bit threadbare, the emperor’s “court intellectuals” have spun ever more sophisticated apologia: informing the public that what the government does is for the “common good” and the “public welfare,” that the process of taxation-and-spending works through the mysterious process of the “multiplier” to keep the economy on an even keel, and that, in any case, a wide variety of governmental “services” could not possibly be performed by citizens acting voluntarily on the market or in society. All of this the libertarian denies: he sees the various apologia as fraudulent means of obtaining public support for the State’s rule, and he insists that whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise.

 

[SkribbelKat]

It was already stuff that was in place before. They just voted to extend it. I dunno why that's a big deal. If it got you angry when they first approved it like fifty million years ago, then it'll make you angry again and maybe start some rant about politics, but that won't change the fact that it got extended.

Have some cookies or something and don't worry about it.

 

[MasonD]

Have some cookies or something and don't worry about it.

This post makes me more angry than the bill being extended. I'm on a diet and if I can't eat cookies no one should be able to...wait....never mind. Only terrorists shouldn't be allowed to eat cookies, everyone else can. Internet cookies and milk for everyone, my treat!

 

[pxc]

mmmm disco oreos.

FISA is horrible, and that horribleness is used as a test of "patriotism". /barf

 

[SkribbelKat]

This post makes me more angry than the bill being extended. I'm on a diet and if I can't eat cookies no one should be able to...wait....never mind. Only terrorists shouldn't be allowed to eat cookies, everyone else can. Internet cookies and milk for everyone, my treat!

Those cookies are like...the entire universe encapsulated between two Oreos...

I WANT THEM!!!!

Oh, and welcome to the forum! I've seen you around, but I haven't said hi yet so now I am!

Now...pardon me while I stare into the depths of the cookie...and someday, it will stare into me.

 

[TheBuzzer]

they already do that i thought

 

[kbrickley]

This was already in place and it only affects calls made where at least one participant is outside the US ... which won't affect the majority of Americans who barely call people in other states, let alone other countries ... however, if the FBI and NSA want to listen to me and my girlfriend speak pigeon english to each other or the business calls between me and our overseas factories ... happy listening ... if business is okay with this (they have the most to lose with the government listening to their conversations) then there probably isn't much to worry about here

 

[HRslammR]

how hard would it be to reroute everything in country to out of country?

then we have a problem.

 

[MasonD]

how hard would it be to reroute everything in country to out of country?

then we have a problem.

They would do something like this too...lol. Maybe with a satellite? (Not sure how much bandwidth that'd require though)

Oh, and welcome to the forum! I've seen you around, but I haven't said hi yet so now I am!

Thanks!

 

[kbrickley]

how hard would it be to reroute everything in country to out of country?

then we have a problem.

Except this isn't based on the route of the call but only the final destination or origination ... now if we redefine certain States to be outside the USA (we could define the Blue states as foreign countries when the Republicans are in control and the Red states as foreign countries when the Democrats are in control) then that strategy could work

 

[guachi]

Reverse targeting is illegal. I can't spy on Jose in Mexico if my real target is Joe in New Jersey.

As someone who actually has to use FISA every day, I can assure you that reverse targeting would be a great way to lose one's job.

 

[TheWeazmeister]

Seriously...some of the comments in this thread are mind blowing. Republicans bitch and moan DAILY about their rights being violated, but when a real Constitutional violation is going on mums the word. Democrats, outside of Senator Wyden aren't doing much better either.

If you RTFA you'll see that one of the big problems with this extension is the following:

The NSA said the “NSA leadership agreed that an IG (Inspector General) review of the sort suggested would further violate the privacy of U.S. persons.”

Are you fucking kidding me? The same rights of privacy that they are violation on the front end are being used as an excuse on the back end on how not to answer question by either and IG or anyone else. Again...are you fucking kidding me?!? Senator Wyden put a procedural hold on it in the Senate as he would like to have some oversight, btw that ACLU and others are asking for as well.

 

[Lith1um]

US government = bunch of s and cocksuckers.

 

[Lith1um]

To hell with Godwin's law. You know Hitler would have thrived and reveled in the technology exploited by our own government. We're supposed to trust that the powers will only be used for positive purposes, but human nature disallows that premise and always has.

Because, after all, we are talking about powers placed in the hands of humans. A patchwork of individuals with individual moralities, failings, and prejudices. Not some flag bearing monolith composed of lofty virtues, individual people.

The forefathers knew that the evil and corruption in man kind would influence and corrupt governments from the inside and the outside, they designed protections that limited the power of government for that very reason. They are rolling in their fucking graves right now.

 

[Lith1um]

Reverse targeting is illegal. I can't spy on Jose in Mexico if my real target is Joe in New Jersey.

As someone who actually has to use FISA every day, I can assure you that reverse targeting would be a great way to lose one's job.

Fuck FISA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSXMW2FMC7A

 

[BladeVenom]

It was already stuff that was in place before. They just voted to extend it. I dunno why that's a big deal. If it got you angry when they first approved it like fifty million years ago, then it'll make you angry again and maybe start some rant about politics, but that won't change the fact that it got extended.

There is a different President now. Some people thought things might change.

 

[SkribbelKat]

There is a different President now. Some people thought things might change.

Yeah, I guess I can understand that.

 

[Methadras]

This post makes me more angry than the bill being extended. I'm on a diet and if I can't eat cookies no one should be able to...wait....never mind. Only terrorists shouldn't be allowed to eat cookies, everyone else can. Internet cookies and milk for everyone, my treat!

Gayreo!!

 

[kbrickley]

There is a different President now. Some people thought things might change.

Except it was Congress and not the president who passed the extension and with a sufficient margin to over ride, even if the president was brave (or foolish) enough to veto it ... unfortunately laws like these always favor a politician supporting them ... think of the logic:

If you vote for this law - if nothing happens you claim the law worked and your political position is safe ... if something happens you claim the law wasn't strong enough and your political position is still safe

If you vote against the law - if nothing happens you claim the law wasn't needed and your position is safe if you are in a liberal district (but a conservative district might run someone against you who claims it just hasn't happened yet and you lose) ... if something does happen then everyone will through you to the wolves and claim YOU could have prevented the incident if you had voted for the law (and you are probably doomed)

with a political calculation like that most politicians will always take the path of voting for the law ... no one wants to leave the door open that they are weak on security ... Americans are also a little Xenophobic right now so a law like this that only appears to target "foreigners" is very popular with the voting base since they think it is not their freedom that is being jeopardized

Although I tend to take a pragmatic approach on these things ... it does sometimes pay to remember the famous poem about the Holocaust:

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Alas Americans do tend to resemble this sometimes.

 

[guachi]

Fuck FISA.

Wonderfully cogent argument. I'll just put you in the "dumbass" category. Please come back with some actual objections to the FISA (amended).

What are your specific objections to how the U.S. handles interception of communications where one end is located outside the US? What are your opinions on Section 702, 703, and 704 interceptions?

 

[SkribbelKat]

Talking about politics in a forum full of people who go through like 350 posts in less than eight hours about a new phone is kinda dumb anyhow. It's not like anyone will agree about anything and most people don't even have rational arguments to make. Those that do aren't going to convince people that disagree with them to think any differently than they do already.

Because of that, we should talk more about the Universe Encompassing Oreos!

 

[kbrickley]

Talking about politics in a forum full of people who go through like 350 posts in less than eight hours about a new phone is kinda dumb anyhow. It's not like anyone will agree about anything and most people don't even have rational arguments to make. Those that do aren't going to convince people that disagree with them to think any differently than they do already.

Because of that, we should talk more about the Universe Encompassing Oreos!

Except I am dieting so Oreos are food non grata ... can we discuss Broccoli instead ... I would say the best coffees but all my favorites are from foreign countries and it just starts all the arguments again

 

[MasonD]

Gayreo!!

Wait...are you saying that's not milk on my lip?

 

[SkribbelKat]

Broccoli is okay too. What about salads? Or salads made from cupcakes? Cupcake salads have to be healthy since the word salad is in the name.

 

[c3141hf]

Wonderfully cogent argument. I'll just put you in the "dumbass" category. Please come back with some actual objections to the FISA (amended).

What are your specific objections to how the U.S. handles interception of communications where one end is located outside the US? What are your opinions on Section 702, 703, and 704 interceptions?

I am neither concerned nor interested in your sophistry or your attempt to obfuscate the issue with legal chicanery. Just because a group of criminals masquerading under the facade of sovereignty writes something down on a piece of paper does not make it morally just nor does it supersede man's natural right to control his own life.

 

[kbrickley]

Broccoli is okay too. What about salads? Or salads made from cupcakes? Cupcake salads have to be healthy since the word salad is in the name.

That might actually work for me ... I am just wrapping up a diet that lasted 15 months ... do you know how hard it is to stop dieting after you have been doing it for 15 months ... IT HARD ... luckily I did lose 165 pounds in the process and am now almost half the man I used to be

 

[MasonD]

That might actually work for me ... I am just wrapping up a diet that lasted 15 months ... do you know how hard it is to stop dieting after you have been doing it for 15 months ... IT HARD ... luckily I did lose 165 pounds in the process and am now almost half the man I used to be

Awesome!!! Good for you man, seriously, congratz!!! PM me with your successful tactics. I could use a little help myself...lol.

 

[DrDoug]

Because of that, we should talk more about the Universe Encompassing Oreos!

OK. What I'm curious to know is what those Universe Encompassing Oreos look like after they pass through you. I think it would be cool to hit the can for a late night dump with the lights off and get a free light show!

 

[SkribbelKat]

That might actually work for me ... I am just wrapping up a diet that lasted 15 months ... do you know how hard it is to stop dieting after you have been doing it for 15 months ... IT HARD ... luckily I did lose 165 pounds in the process and am now almost half the man I used to be

Wow, that's awesomeness! Great job with dropping the extra weight! *high fives* Maybe you should stay away from the cupcake salad though. We don't wanna ruin a good thing.

OK. What I'm curious to know is what those Universe Encompassing Oreos look like after they pass through you. I think it would be cool to hit the can for a late night dump with the lights off and get a free light show!

I hadn't even thought about that...I guess you'd have like a swirling starscape to watch when you flushed. I wonder if that's like introducing a black hole... Ooooh this needs some kinda research grant!

 

[kac77]

What kind of f@$&ing cookies are those?!?! They look like someone took My Little Pony excrement and sandwiched it between two chocolate wafers. I'm not eating that. I might as well crash a Burning Man party and ask some club kid to crap in mouth and then give a BJ to the Nestle Quick Rabbit. I'm sure it will taste the same.

How could you bring those cookies in here???

 

[SkribbelKat]

I am neither concerned nor interested in your sophistry or your attempt to obfuscate the issue with legal chicanery. Just because a group of criminals masquerading under the facade of sovereignty writes something down on a piece of paper does not make it morally just nor does it supersede man's natural right to control his own life.

Yeah, don't get all smart and use facts when being irrational and emo about it even though you're totally just another law-abiding citizen outside the forum!

What kind of f@$&ing cookies are those?!?! They look like someone took My Little Pony excrement and sandwiched it between two chocolate wafers. I'm not eating that. I might as well crash a Burning Man party and ask some club kid to crap in mouth and then give a BJ to the Nestle Quick Rabbit. I'm sure it will taste the same.

How could you bring those cookies in here???

Have you seen the new My Little Pony animated series yet?! It's on Netflix and it's amazingly funny and fun to watch. Anyway, don't question the cookies for they contain the seekrits of the universe within them!

 

[c3141hf]

Yeah, don't get all smart and use facts when being irrational and emo about it even though you're totally just another law-abiding citizen outside the forum!

There is nothing to debate. Surely, you don't plan on using this same approach if a bunch of criminals break into your home and hold you at gun point. This is no different. In this case, the state is intruding upon a person's private property rights by listening in on their phone calls without their permission.

Warrants are irrelevant. FISA and other state fiats are irrelevant. None of the intellectual sophistry changes the fact that what FISA does would be considered criminal if any private individual did such a thing. If I were to tap someone's phone lines without their permission, I would be arrested, even if I did it because I thought it was necessary to help people. I insist on holding the state to the same moral standards as any private individual.

 

[kbrickley]

There is nothing to debate. Surely, you don't plan on using this same approach if a bunch of criminals break into your home and hold you at gun point. This is no different. In this case, the state is intruding upon a person's private property rights by listening in on their phone calls without their permission.

Warrants are irrelevant. FISA and other state fiats are irrelevant. None of the intellectual sophistry changes the fact that what FISA does would be considered criminal if any private individual did such a thing. If I were to tap someone's phone lines without their permission, I would be arrested, even if I did it because I thought it was necessary to help people. I insist on holding the state to the same moral standards as any private individual.

You are engaging in a philosophical thought experiment akin to Schrodinger's Cat ... generally the state is always granted certain privileges denied to an individual ... the State can declare war on another country and send other members of the State to kill said members of the other State ... if you declare war on your neighbor you will go to jail or the State will kill you ... total freedom is anarchy and most people have neither the stomach nor the disposition for anarchy ... that doesn't mean that the state can't over step its bounds (which is why we have elections) so we have the opportunity to change the members of the state ... it is also interesting that most anarchists seem to hide behind the same protections of the the law they sometimes complain about in the State

 

[SkribbelKat]

There is nothing to debate. Surely, you don't plan on using this same approach if a bunch of criminals break into your home and hold you at gun point. This is no different. In this case, the state is intruding upon a person's private property rights by listening in on their phone calls without their permission.

Warrants are irrelevant. FISA and other state fiats are irrelevant. None of the intellectual sophistry changes the fact that what FISA does would be considered criminal if any private individual did such a thing. If I were to tap someone's phone lines without their permission, I would be arrested, even if I did it because I thought it was necessary to help people. I insist on holding the state to the same moral standards as any private individual.

I think Fiat would like to be more relevant in the US market. I read somewhere, on MSN probably, that the 500 wasn't selling well so they were making adjustments for the coming model year. I hope they do better because those things are absolutely adorable!

 

[c3141hf]

You are engaging in a philosophical thought experiment akin to Schrodinger's Cat ... generally the state is always granted certain privileges denied to an individual ... the State can declare war on another country and send other members of the State to kill said members of the other State ... if you declare war on your neighbor you will go to jail or the State will kill you ... total freedom is anarchy and most people have neither the stomach nor the disposition for anarchy ... that doesn't mean that the state can't over step its bounds (which is why we have elections) so we have the opportunity to change the members of the state ... it is also interesting that most anarchists seem to hide behind the same protections of the the law they sometimes complain about in the State

Granted privileges by whom? Certainly I have not granted the state permission to go out and kill people in my name.

War is inherently illegitimate because it is the mass murder of other people. In fact, if I "waged war" as a private individual, I would rightfully be called a mass murderer rather than a patriot. Yet, we excuse individuals from acts of murder simply because they wear a uniform and act under the trapping of sovereignty.

FISA is no different. In this case, the state has unilaterally decided that it now has the right to intrude upon people's private property and spy on them, without their consent. They use propaganda terms like "national security" and "war on terror" to try and justify this outrageous criminal activity, intimidating people into believing that this unjustified aggression is somehow necessary to keep them safe. Even if it was, and even if it truly made people safer, one could not morally use the ends to justify the means; it is as important to look at the morality of the action itself as it is to look at the morality of the outcome of the action (I am a deontologist).

 

[MasonD]

total freedom is anarchy

What? You serious? I think anarchy is anarchy. Freedom is a natural right to be left alone or something like that. The gov is going way too far a lot of times. Like trying to spy on me with every single camera they have or sneaking in my house and eating my "universe oreos" without a warrant (sneak and peak) is not cool. Let alone the NDAA they tried to pass (yay to that judge for permanently canning it). I'll take more freedom with the same risk than less freedom and the same risk.

 

[MasonD]

damicatz, I agree with you on your current points completely. Couldn't have said it better myself!


That said, I think it's because these universe oreos had shrooms in them.

 

[kinjo]

You are engaging in a philosophical thought experiment akin to Schrodinger's Cat ... generally the state is always granted certain privileges denied to an individual ... the State can declare war on another country and send other members of the State to kill said members of the other State ... if you declare war on your neighbor you will go to jail or the State will kill you ... total freedom is anarchy and most people have neither the stomach nor the disposition for anarchy ... that doesn't mean that the state can't over step its bounds (which is why we have elections) so we have the opportunity to change the members of the state ... it is also interesting that most anarchists seem to hide behind the same protections of the the law they sometimes complain about in the State

I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, however I believe that what damicatz is arguing is not that we should have anarchy but simply that the state should be beholden to some sort of greater moral standard.

For example the government taking some of my money to build roads and schools is fine but they should have to ask me first (just like an individual asking me for money would be fine too). The government declaring war is fine too if they are doing so out of a genuine need to defend the state (just like an individual killing another individual is ok if it is done in self defense) and so on and so forth...

no one is arguing that the government should not have any power simply that that power should have to be exercised in accord with the same set of rules that we as individuals have to operate.

 

[Lith1um]

Wonderfully cogent argument. I'll just put you in the "dumbass" category. Please come back with some actual objections to the FISA (amended).

What are your specific objections to how the U.S. handles interception of communications where one end is located outside the US? What are your opinions on Section 702, 703, and 704 interceptions?

What would your objections be to me standing in your bedroom while you shag your old lady? Or do you hold some expectation of privacy as an American citizen?