Some companies helped the NSA, but which?

This is the first in a two-part series. Part two offers a glimpse at the technical details of how the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance system seems to work.

Even after the recent scrutiny of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance project approved by President Bush, an intriguing question remains unanswered: Which corporations cooperated with the spy agency?

Some reports have identified executives at "major telecommunications companies" who chose to open their networks to the NSA. Because it may be illegal to divulge customer communications, though, not one has chosen to make its cooperation public.

Under federal law, any person or company who helps someone "intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication"--unless specifically authorized by law--could face criminal charges. Even if cooperation is found to be legal, however, it could be embarrassing to acknowledge opening up customers' communications to a spy agency.

A survey by CNET News.com has identified 15 large telecommunications and Internet companies that are willing to say that they have not participated in the NSA program, which intercepts e-mail and telephone calls without a judge's approval.

Twelve other companies that were contacted and asked identical questions chose not to reply, in some cases citing "national security" as the reason.

Those results come amid a push on Capitol Hill for more information about the NSA's wiretapping practices. On Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is expected to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and President Bush and his closest allies have been stepping up their defense of the program in preparation for it.

To be sure, there are a number of possible explanations for the companies' silence. In some cases, a company's media department could have been overworked. Another possibility is the company's lawyers were unavailable or chose not to reply for unknown reasons.

Also, some survey recipients, such as NTT Communications, responded with a general statement expressing compliance "with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law" rather than addressing the question of NSA surveillance.

Who's helping the NSA?

CNET News.com asked telecommunications and Internet companies about cooperation with the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping scheme. We asked them: "Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"
Company	Response
Adelphia Communications	Declined comment
AOL Time Warner	No [1]
AT&T	Declined comment
BellSouth Communications	No
Cable & Wireless*	No response
Cablevision Systems	No
CenturyTel	No
Charter Communications	No [1]
Cingular Wireless	No [2]
Citizens Communications	No response
Cogent Communications*	No [1]
Comcast	No
Cox Communications	No
EarthLink	No
Global Crossing*	Inconclusive
Google	Declined comment
Level 3*	No response
Microsoft	No [3]
NTT Communications*	Inconclusive [4]
Qwest Communications	No [2]
SAVVIS Communications*	No response
Sprint Nextel	No [2]
T-Mobile USA	No [2]
United Online	No response
Verizon Communications	Inconclusive [5]
XO Communications*	No [1]
Yahoo	Declined comment
* = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers. [1] The answer did not explicitly address NSA but said that compliance happens only if required by law. [2] Provided by a source with knowledge of what this company is telling Conyers. In the case of Sprint Nextel, the source was familiar with Nextel's operations. [3] As part of an answer to a closely related question for a different survey. [4] The response was "NTT Communications respects the privacy rights of our customers and complies fully with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law." [5] The response was "Verizon complies with applicable laws and does not comment on law enforcement or national security matters."

A lawsuit that could yield more details about industry cooperation is winding its way through the federal courts. Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group based in San Francisco, sued AT&T after a report that the company had shared its customer records database--though not its network--with the NSA.

AT&T would not respond when asked whether it participated. An AT&T spokesman, Dave Pacholczyk, said: "We don't comment on matters of national security."

The News.com survey, started Jan. 25, found that wireless providers and cable companies were the most likely to distance themselves from the NSA. Cingular Wireless, Comcast, Cox Communications, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile said they had not turned over information or opened their networks to the NSA without being required by law.

Companies that are backbone providers, or which operate undersea cables spanning the ocean, were among the least likely to respond. AT&T, Cable & Wireless, Global Crossing, Level 3, NTT Communications, SAVVIS Communications and Verizon Communications chose not to answer the questions posed to them.

The New York Times reported on Dec. 24 that the NSA has gained access to switches that act as gateways at the borders between the United States' communications networks and international networks. But "the identities of the corporations involved could not be determined," the newspaper added.

At the water's edge
Analysts and historians who follow the intelligence community have long said the companies that operate submarine cables--armored sheaths wrapped around bundles of fiber optic lines--surreptitiously provide access to the NSA.

"You go to Global Crossing and say...once your cable comes up for air in New Jersey or on the coast of Virginia, wherever it goes up, we want to put a little splice in, thank you very much, which NSA can do," said Matthew Aid, who recently completed the first volume in a multiple-volume history of the NSA. "The technology of getting access to that stuff is fairly straightforward."

Aid was citing Global Crossing as an example, not singling it out. Global Crossing describes itself as an Internet backbone network that shuttles traffic for about 700 telecommunications carriers, mobile operators and Internet service providers. According to the International Cable Protection Committee, the company has full or partial ownership of several trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cables.

[Kellino]

Some companies helped the terrorists

Companies likes CNET/NEWS.COM for disclosing to terrorists which communication networks might not be montitored.<br /><br />This borders on treason. The New York Times has violoated the Espionage Act by illegally disclosing the existence of a classified program. The Times will have its day in court and CNET comes dangerously close to the same legal jeaporadies by identifying communiation networks which are not participating in the NSA's terrorist survelliance program.<br /><br />CNET -- you could have posted the survey results with general answers, but no you had to go the extra mile and identify the communications networks that are not participating.<br /><br />Let's just give the terrorists their own private communication network while we're at it so that they too can have a right to privacy while they discuss how to murder us.

[markdoiron]

Thank You CNET.com

thank you, cnet.com, for letting me know that it appears that my communications provider (cox comm) is not run by a bunch of traitors who don't respect the constitution and laws of this great country of ours. <br /><br />mark d.

Well said

"Let's just give the terrorists their own private communication network while we're at it so that they too can have a right to privacy while they discuss how to murder us."<br /><br />Its a good thing this press wasnt around in WW2.

[Zymurgist]

Silly.

The argument that someone is treasonous for <br />disclosing which communications networks are <br />monitored is off the mark. <br /> <br />First, any person engaged in a covert activity <br />such as the hypothetical scenario of a terrorist <br />organizing an attack will a priori assume that <br />any and all communication channels are subject <br />to monitoring and interception and then plan <br />accordingly. Monitoring communications channels <br />is merely done for the purpose of due diligence, <br />not because you expect to obtain useful <br />information out of it. Recent testimony to <br />congress has indicated that current and past <br />surveillance has to date, turned up no actual <br />leads and a rate of about 10 "suspects" per year <br />(all of which have proven to be false positives <br />so far). <br /> <br />Second, "treason" is quite specifically (under <br />US law) attempted violent overthrow of the <br />government. Espionage, improper disclosure of <br />classified information, etc. has never amounted <br />to treason in the US.

[R. U. Sirius]

Cnet did nothing of the sort

Mr. Kelling,<br /><br />Your comments are some of the most anti-American I've ever heard. There is a cherished document we call The Constitution. It guarantees our rights as citizens, and Cnet's rights as the press. I suggest you read it some time, especially the first and fourth amendments.<br /><br />And your defense of Bush by blaming Clinton is ludicrous. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[SpookySr]

You're hilarious Kevin!

CNET &#38; NYTIMES is violating the Espionage Act??? Huh??? How's that Kevin? Benj. Franklin must have been a traitor too when he posted anti-government journalism to Philly newspapers as Silas Dogood. "The pen is mightier than the sword". We Americans have a right to know that our laws are being potentially violated by our alleged President and his arguably crooked administration. <br /><br />Journalist violating the Espionage Act would be more like a certain right-wing journalist outting a CIA officer and getting one of her field agent's allegedly K.I.A. by his big stupid mouth. And why? All to further his WH handlers secret agenda to embarrass her husband who actually proved that their hidden agenda in SW-ASIA was all totally bogus! And then one of those WH "handlers" goes totally scott-free with the agent's blood STILL on his hands! <br /><br />Get over it... spies of all stripes know how to secretly read, watch tv, do library research, Google, etc. without anyone actually noticing. They don't have to read the NYTIMES or CNET to reactively develop their "marching orders". They just have to go to Rev. Sun Yung Moon's newspaper (Washington Times) or Rupert Murdoch's TV station (FOX NEWS) for that. Liberal media indeed! That was slightly tongue-in-cheek now...<br /><br />Thinking that terrorists are using cellphones, Nextels, Internet, postal mail, and email to do their covert planning and operations is just typical right-wing propaganda for the American sheeple to digest. The real "dosmetic spying" program IMO has another purpose totally unrelated to the so-called war on terrorism. I'm only guessing of course...<br /><br />Is that alleged San Diego telephone call you keep harping on anything like the telephone call Colin Powell played for the UN to PROVE that Iraq had WMDS??? Yeah SoundForge works real good don't it?

It's NOT a domestic spying program

The focus is on international calls originating from the U.S., not on the average American citizens as the desperate Dems would like you to believe. Straight from the Clinton playbook, the liberals or Dems continue to spin their lies so that eventually they become half-truths or myths. Fortunately, the majority of Americans didn't fall for it this time.

[declan00]

domestic surveillance program

Did you actually read the article? We quoted Gonzales on this point and linked to his full statement. Excerpt from our article:<br /><br />Attorney General Gonzales has stressed that the program intercepts e-mail and phone conversations only when "one party to the communication is outside the United States."

[freq]

bull-oni !!

I pratically have had the contents of my emails smeared in my face... wide ranges of people have been labled suspects for various socio-politico reasons... even though terrorism may be the last thought in their minds....

[markdoiron]

Doesn't Matter--Falls Under FISA

everyone who thinks that taking the position that this is "not a domestic spying program" holds any relevance at all to the legality/illegality of these acts should read what fisa says. i suggest starting here:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/" target="_newWindow">http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/</a><br /><br />bottom line: he could have gotten warrants even after the fact, he could have asked that the law be changed. instead, he acted entirely without warrants, and he helped rewrite the patriot act in such a way that it does not afford him the additional "powers" he's chosen to exercise. <br /><br />mark d.

[Zymurgist]

Not quite.

Bush initially used the term domestic <br />surveillance to refer to his executive order <br />because it did four things: authorize monitoring <br />outbound international calls, authorize <br />monitoring of domestic calls for those making <br />international calls, authorize monitoring of <br />calls made by persons contacted by those making <br />the the international calls (whether or not they <br />themselves made international calls), and <br />authorized disregard for the FISA warrant <br />requirement of US law.

[marileev]

if it quacks...

..like a duck and walks like a duck...

[Dead Soulman]

Yellow Press !!!

Come on CNET. As much as I enjoy reading your stories, I can't stand your "yellow press" coverage of the wiretapping of suspicious conversations.<br /><br />Why don't you focus on the details of what goes on with this program. It listens to conversations of suspicious people living in the US and tracks their conversations abroad as well as their activities within the US. It doesn't listen to domestic conversations of regular americans.<br /><br />Cut the nonsense. Report the truth !!!<br />I'm starting to believe that George Soros and his whole Air America team of clowns are running CNET.<br /><br />Come on guys, get back on track.

[Zymurgist]

Ask the Shakers...

FWIW - A Quaker church in Florida that had <br />recently been fingered by the Department of <br />Defense as a credible terrorist threat would beg <br />to differ. Why did the DoD single them out, even <br />going so far as writing a 400-page dossier on <br />the church and its members? Well, apparently <br />they were overheard planning to picket in front <br />of a local high-school to protest the presence <br />of military recruiters there. <br /> <br />Mind you, this was done as part of the TALON <br />program, which existed prior to the NSA debacle, <br />but you have to ask yourself why the US <br />government runs a program whose charter is to <br />"neutralize political dissidents" within the US <br />and then goes around spying on churches and <br />church members that exhibit anti-war views. <br /> <br />So, yes, the government does appear to monitor <br />domestic communications and groups. Perhaps they <br />restrict their surveillance to dangerous groups <br />like these celibate Floridian peaceniks, but <br />it's wishful thinking to say it doesn't happen <br />with a broader scope. <br /> <br />This doesn't have anything to do with <br />Republicans or Democrats -- they are the <br />effectively the same with regard to this debate.

[Thrudheim]

yellow, schmellow

It appeas that you are so blinded by ideology (i.e. that anything <br />that smacks of criticism of the administration must be the <br />devious work of the "liberal" media) that you don't follow your <br />own advice: focus on the details of the program.<br /><br />As was reported yesterday in the Washington Post, it appears <br />that a huge range of conversations are being monitored under <br />the program. Certain ones get flagged for more intensive <br />review. Of these, a high percentage have proved to be <br />completely useless. They are fishing, in other words. If course, <br />you probably discount anything the Post says.<br /><br />And then, you ignore the real problem here: all of this is being <br />done without clear legal authorization. They feel no need to <br />seek a warrant and instead claim dubious war powers. If this <br />program is so vital, then get clear authority to do it.<br /><br />FISA was set up because the FBI and intellegence services were <br />used to eavesdrop on domestic targets, such as MLK. If the <br />power exists unchecked, it will be misused. Just because *you* <br />may trust the current administration does not mean that there <br />should not be safeguards. There should be oversight by the <br />other branches of government. <br /><br />Already, there are separate stories about student anti-war <br />groups being monitored as part of the effort to combat <br />"terrorism." If we don't learn the lessons of the past <br />(McCarthyism, etc) we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.

[R. U. Sirius]

How do you know?

&gt; It listens to conversations of suspicious <br />&gt; people living in the US and tracks their <br />&gt; conversations abroad as well as their <br />&gt; activities within the US.<br /><br />Source please?

[marileev]

a different spectrum

if this were totally slanted, then CNet News.com wouldn't allow this open discussion. Kudos for freedom of expression.

[markdoiron]

I Believe It Listens to All Int'l Comm's

actually, i believe that it initially listens to virtually ***ALL*** international communications, then choses from there those that require further monitoring. at this point, since it treads so heavily on the constitution, the administration choses not to seek warrants that could be otherwise easily obtained. if they didn't monitor all communications the program wouldn't be as effective. but that's the thing with surveillance: if you can keep track on everything that everyone does, you'll have a very peaceful, secure country. and one that is unrecognizable to our founding fathers. <br /><br />mark d.

[heystoopid]

Logical

Logical, for no company, wants to leave itself wide open to deliberate admission to the illegal breaches of the various state and federal privacy acts in force throughout the country!<br /><br />As for the NSA monitoring, of all local communications, history tell us this program became reality after the innauguration of the current encumbent in 2000, at 1600 pennsylvania avenue(previous programs by past president's all were subject to the 1968 spy act, something that his cronies who seek to abuse the system on a daily basis on the basis the ends justifies the means and the means justify the ends, fail to omit in their public dialogue)<br /><br />the following two statements apply here!<br /><br />1/Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin<br /><br />2/Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

[Kellino]

Ben Franklin misquoted again

Actually Franklin's original quote in 1755 says "a little temporary safety".<br /><br />Is having a conversation with a suspected terrorist overseas an "essential" liberty? What is "essential" lierty?<br /><br />To answer this question it is instructive to review Franklin's activities in espionage.<br /><br />The CIA has a good history at the link below. He was one of the premier intelligence agents of the Revolutionary War and was appointed by the Congress to review and publish intercepted communications from England.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/warindep/intro.shtml" target="_newWindow">http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/warindep/intro.shtml</a>

[mgreere]

Does this make sense?

Now it's starting to make more sense.<br /><br />If what dictates probable cause is not contacts in a cellphone, <br />but computer sniffing, arguing for probabe cause would <br />probably be considerably harder.<br /><br />This person fit our model and has a 79% chance of engaging in <br />suspicious activity. That's what you would want to move on if <br />you've got a big net and you're looking for the best leads. <br />Probabilistic. But try passing that by a court.<br /><br />I'll bet it's the process that leads to actual surveillance that <br />would fail to fetch warrants.<br /><br />The open question remains why the admnistration has chosen to <br />keep even the few people it briefs in congress largely in the <br />dark. (And, of course, why no effort has been made to seek <br />approval or real oversight.)

[Kellino]

Kept In the Dark?

The charge that Congress has been kept in the dark is erroneous and misleading.<br /><br />First of all, a review on the Constitution reveals what level of authority Congress has over the collection of foreign intelligence.<br /><br />They have the power of the purse and that's it. Interesting isn't it, that no Senators are calling to use the only authority that they do have and kill funding for the program. I wonder why...<br /><br />Second, the Bush Administration has briefed the Senate Foriegn Intelligence committee on this pogram on numerous occasions. Sen. Rockerfeller sits on this committee and documented his concerns and put them in a sealed enevelope until this opportunity.<br /><br />The only members of Congress that were "kept in the dark" are those who do not sit on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee. <br /><br />Now why should a classified program be revealed to these individuals who are neither experts in the matter nor have any Constitutional oversight in the matter? Can we honestly expect Congressmen to keep secrets to themselves? That's a good one.<br /><br />And why does the Bush Administration need to "seek approval" for something Carter, Reagan and Clinton did as well. I bring up Clinton because the survelliance under that administration was truly domestic and this was before the 9-11 attacks woke us up to the true danger of the terrorist threat.<br /><br />From United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984):<br /><br />Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.<br /><br />Indeed as I pointed out in another post on this topic, the Clinton Administration argued that to deny the executive the ability to perform these executive searches would be unconstitutional:<br /><br />As Andrew McCarthy points out:<br /><br />The Clinton OLC asserted, among other things, that even though the criminal wiretap statute (18 USC Sec 2510 et seq.) purports to limit the executive branch?s ability to disclose wiretap information, the President was free to ignore those statutory provisions where limiting ?the access of the President and his aides to information critical to national security or foreign relations . . . would be unconstitutional as applied in those circumstances.?<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#089313" target="_newWindow">http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#089313</a>

[Catgic]

I*m Shocked, Shocked That NSA Eavesdrops On Int?l E-Comms

Wake up and smell the coffee wafting out from behind the double finger-stock 120 db e-sealed Black Velvet Curtain, CNETizens. Would Captain Renault be shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in Las Vegas or in the back room at Rick?s Place? <br /><br />The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on and monitoring all global, international electronic communication emissions from the middle of that Maryland cow pasture since ?By memorandum of October 24, 1952, President Truman established the National Security Agency (NSA) as the organization within the U.S. Government responsible for communications intelligence (COMINT) activities.?<br /><br />Why is anyone shocked, shocked that the NSA in eavesdropping on any and all phone calls and Internet packets going to and fro on links between domestic and international communication nodes? That is the precise job Give ?Em Hell Harry Executive Ordered them to do. <br /><br />There is a good reason why knowledgeable folks say the NSA acronym really stands for NEVER SAY ANYTHING. That is, never say anything over the phone, FAX or Internet you do not mind the government reading or listening to.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/820352.stm" target="_newWindow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/820352.stm</a><br /><br />The 64 Trillion U$D BLACK BUDGET question is, when does a *Terrorist Surveillance Program* cross the Constitutional line and become a *Domestic Eavesdropping Program*?<br /><br />I shall be waiting with bated Techno-Geek breath for ?A glimpse at the technical details of how the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance system seems to work,? when Part Two of this Declan and Anne series is launched onto the Web tomorrow. JP B-)

[solarflair]

comcast

At least comcast is not giving away personel information.<br />I have no problem with monitoring provided it is conducted in a legal manner with provisions in place to protect americans rights. I'm all for monitoring targets that are linked to known factions in the middle east who are a national security threat to the United States and our allied friends around the world.

For What End id the Monitoring?

It would be easier to accept the sincerity of this bunch of "spies" if they were truly making an effort to make us safe through our seaports and our borders, however all I can do is laugh when they say they are monitoring phone calls for our safety! HAHAHAHAH

[marileev]

Americans need to know-marketplace response

As a free market economy there are many factors which dictate the economic ebb and flow of the economy. This is a verifiable factor, just as companies greasing the coffers of politicians or which places use cruelty free products. We need to know.<br /><br />Email's transitory stops don't secure your message, these packets can be intercepted by the government, maldoers, whomever: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com/Documents/article12.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com/Documents/article12.htm</a>

[Kellino]

Response to Michael G

Couldn't respond so starting a new thread...<br /><br />Yes it is sad that we're still here isn't it :) My excuse is that I'm home helping my wife recover from surgery and I'm finding this more rfreshing than indulging in computer geek stuff :)<br /><br />I think have a better appreciation for your concerns, but I still feel that some of them may be ill-founded.<br /><br />For example you said "Had FISA never been passed, Gonzales' case would be a lot stronger (and the president wouldn't have any laws to break). But FISA exists, and so it appears that he has broken the law."<br /><br />But the legislation is never the final authority. That is reserved for the Constitution. Warrantless survelliance has yet to be struck down by the courts but this specific program from the Bush Administration hasn't been heard yet.<br /><br />No law will be upheld if it is found to be unconstitutional within the specifics of the case brough before the court.<br /><br />You concluded with "Still, I don't really care about whether it's legal in the technical sense. I care that we have two fundamental elements of <br />our democracy being largely ignored. 1. Checks and balances. 2. Federal law."<br /><br />My opinion but it seems to be like you might be contradicting yourself here. How can you not care about whether it is legal in the technical sense and only be concerned with checks and balances and Federal law. Isn't that all the same thing? <br /><br />And in the system of checks and balances, Congress is given the authority to delcare war, has the power of the purse, and the Senate can ratify treaties. The Executive exeucutes -- especially when it comes to foreign intelligence. The courts have oversight into the legality of such programs and again -- so far the courts have upheld warrantless searches by the Executive for national security. It seems to me that the checks and balances put in place by the Framers are working as intended.<br /><br />The comment I made about Anti-American rehetoric was in response to someone elses comments.<br /><br />Anyways that's my $.0.02 thus far. <br /><br />It does appear that there is need for clarity on FISA and you mentioned some of the reasons. Hopefully Congress will stop posturing and start legislating.<br /><br />My biggest objection is to the way the media has framed the case. You've seen on this forum all those who insist that the 4th Amendment is absolute -- which is ironic because liberals are rearely strict constructionalists when it comes to the Constitution.<br /><br />People need to tone down the rhetoric and try to understand better before they start making accusations -- and that includes Senators :) This is Consitutional Law we are talking about so it's not easy and I don't think the media has done a very good job at educating on the matter.<br /><br />I also stand by my original post that CNET's decision to publish this information was unneccessary, unhelpful and in doing so they are following in the footsteps of the NY Times which may find itself facing charges of violating the Espionage Act when this is all over. <br /><br />What great value did posting this information serve, while the legality of the program is being discussed in Congressional hearings? Seems to me it didn't do much other than give terrorists information as to which communications networks are more secure for their nefarious purposes. Why would we want to release information which makes it easier for terrorists to communicate more securely? It seems that some are so convinced this activity is legal -- while hearings are transpiring -- that they think somehow they are doing us all a favor by publishing this. Now that's irony and it's also very dangerous.

[Kellino]

More legal background

November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001:<br /><br />The Truong court [http://United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980|http://United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Are You Scared Yet?

Kevin, you should be ashamed, you still think there is a boogey man, and that GW can keep you safe, without applying any security at our ports or at our borders....<br />All I can say to you is BOO!

[R. U. Sirius]

Kelling works for the RNC

"His" astroturf is all over the net.

[Earl Benser]

One thing is for sure....

.... Kelling does have an incredibly large bias. I just wish I had any <br />feeling at all that he knows what he is talking about.

[Kellino]

I am biased :)

So instead look at the case law I quoted from federal court decisions. <br /><br />Look, I think there's three verifiable facts that we can all agree on:<br /><br />1) The *current* NSA program has not been tested in the courts<br /><br />2) In the post-FISA era virtually every court that has addressed the issue of warrantless searches by the Executive has ruled that national security constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. Additionally, the courts have ruled -- as recently as 2002 -- that legislation --specifically FISA -- can not be construed to place limits on the President's Consitutional powers.<br /><br />(I've quoted the case law which supports this on this in other posts)<br /><br />3) George W. Bush is the 4th US President to perform warrantless searches of electronic communications for national security.<br /><br />Now most of the media converage has focused either on possible FISA violations, or an absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment (rejected by the courts).<br /><br />Did the program violate FISA? Perhaps -- but in my opinion we need to know the technical details of the program before conclusions can be made here.<br /><br />Then there is the argument -- used by Gonzales -- that Congressional approval is implicit in AUMF. This argument is certainly debatable to say the least. I think that Congress should act act provide clarity here.<br /><br />Also much of the coverage has focused on the "why didn't the President just ask for FISA warrants" argument which as I (and the courts) pointed out leaves gaps not to mention an unsustainable legal workload (or "unduly fustrate" the Executive's powers as the courts have refered to it).<br /><br />This takes us back full-circle to the Constitutional argument. And all the case law we have on this issue dealt with INTERNAL communications. So based on legal precedent (case law), it's hardly a stretch in my opinion that the courts would rule that monitoring of International-to-Domestic (or vice-versa) phone calls is a Constitutional power of the Executive that can not be limited by legislation.<br /><br />And that's my judicial opinion. We can debate this all we want on how to interperet the Constitution but that's what judges are for. Somehow I doubt that even a Supreme Court decision would fail to bring closure to the matter for many.<br /><br />In any case, based on the case law history that we do have to work with *I* -- my opinion -- I feel confident that were the courts to review the program it would be deemed constitutional --whether or not it violates FISA provisions. <br /><br />I beleive the NSA program was necessary and legal. I think the NSA not intercepting the Yemen-to-San Diego calls to a 9-11 hijacker is a strong argument and I would further argue that any President that did NOT close this gap should be impeached for not upholding their Consitutional responsibility to protect the Republic. And I also beleive that CNET's publication of network participation was unnecessary and irresponsible.<br /><br />Now if the NSA program were ever extended to monitor domestic-domestic calls I would like to see an independent entity appointed to review the program for abuses on a regular basis, for example how Democrats (Kennedy/Hoover) wiretaped MLK.<br /><br />I think this is why the Bush Administration chose not to monitor domestic-domestic communications (which the Washington Post reported on today). Even though it might have been legal according to the Consitutional argument, it would have looked very bad without some proper oversight. i.e. in theory the White House could have tapped Howard Dean's phones and even the perception of that possibility is undesireable to say the least.<br /><br />But that's what Congress' role is - they can legislate to find solutions to these issues consistent with the Constitution. At the moment they seem more enamoured with bloviating on the cameras than utilizing their legislative powers.

[Earl Benser]

We know that....

... and you have been far too verbal to retain credibility. You come <br />on like pure propaganda. Maybe it isn't, but you make it look like it <br />is.<br /><br />I'll look for some trustworthy experts to get believable opinions.

[drifted]

God are you all blind???

Whats wrong with you Yankees (sorry this is what us Brits call you, so all you non-new york fans dont moan)? cant you see where this is heading or have none of you read 1984? (by George Orwell in case you dont know). Its pretty obvious that these executives that 'declined to respond' are hiding something, otherwise they could have just said "No we dont divulge customer information to the goverment, just because Mr. NSA asked nicely". The US government (pretty much since J. Hoover) has routinely spied on its own citizens and not just in the interests of 'National Security'. A prime example is former President Nixon who had the NSA routinely eavesdrop on citizens and organisations, (around 7000 individuals and 1000 orgs). I know what you are thinking, my wonderful (not so) democratically elected Bush Republican government will never do such a thing, thats illegal. But look at the Iraqi war, thats illegal by international law, but it never stopped your (and my) government from contraviening it and going to war (and basically sending those poor soldiers to their early demise).<br /><br />There is also another way that your government spys on you; Echelon. This is a system set up after WWII by the American, British, New Zealand, Austrailian and Candian goverments to intercept communications from all around the world. In order to get around the clauses of spying on your own citizens, each country spys on the other, then shares the information with the host country. We have several American 'listening posts' (spy stations) on UK soil, passing information right back to our own government.<br /><br />The US and UK et al say they need to look out for potential terrorists that may be lurking around the next corner, but the fact is, if these countries hadn't completely disregarded human life and the soveignty of another nation, then there wouldn't be as many terrorists in the world. The fact is the other half were probably trained by the CIA to fight those (former) damned Soviets (e.g. the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, etc.)

[freq]

spy stations

how about kinkos... ATMS... SAFEWAY... your local fire station... police... and on and on and on<br /><br />I hate playing tag... I hate it... I always get picked as being IT... <br /><br />why dont you all just grow up!

[Black Water]

Hi Arif. :)

Arif,<br /> Americans are not all blind or stupid. Blind people are blind and <br />stupid people are stupid. I was born and raised in Texas. I do <br />not agree with this government and its overt actions but I am <br />pro American. When I say Pro-American I mean: Everyday people <br />who go to work every day to make payments and deal with <br />responsibilities. 99% of these people do not have any control <br />over this government. Our voting system is seriously flawed with <br />an Electoral College system. There is no ?one person, one vote? <br />and we have a serious disenfranchisement issue which <br />determined the last 2 so-called elections along with other <br />corruptions that ?Rocked the Vote?. Please don?t throw the baby <br />out with the bath water. We are a good people. Maybe we just <br />don?t feel that a bloody revolution is the answer. <br /> Your American Cousin. J

[freq]

weak security is practically consent...

I dont feel secure with comcast... anyone else? though I do miss the performance and pricepoint of comcast.. they could implement some sort of VPN deal... I am sure it would be appreciated.... or better yet, some practical competition would be nice....<br /><br />I dont feel secure with any big telcos... and why does corporate america trust its conference calls to the telcos?????? maybe only the unimportant conf calls... :-( what a scam! what a big ego-busting scam.....

[209979377489953107664053243186]

Demand better from your provider

It's true, our communications providers CAN be giving customer's security options that would prevent, at least, unauthorized access to email in transit and storage. Tell them you want it, encourage them to do what Verizon did, and create an encryption policy for email accounts. <br /><br />Only if they feel the market is there will they make the move...

[Kellino]

Are CBS and NYTimes Reliable Sources?

Not always, but I'll share them anyways. But before you do remember that Clinton Justice Department lawyers -- especially Gorelick -- testified before Congress that the Executive branch has the authority to monitor domestic -- and not international communications.<br /><br />As Andrew McCarthy points out:<br /><br />The Clinton OLC asserted, among other things, that even though the criminal wiretap statute (18 USC Sec 2510 et seq.) purports to limit the executive branch?s ability to disclose wiretap information, the President was free to ignore those statutory provisions where limiting ?the access of the President and his aides to information critical to national security or foreign relations . . . would be unconstitutional as applied in those circumstances.?<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#089313" target="_newWindow">http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#089313</a><br /><br />Had the NSA program been in place, prior to 9-11 it could have possibly prevented the attacks. 9-11 has become o politicized that there is more resistance today to perceptions of survelliance than there woere pre 9-11.<br /><br />CBS 60 Minutes March 2000:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml" target="_newWindow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml</a><br /><br />Full transcript here:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm" target="_newWindow">http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm</a><br /><br />NYTimes May 27, 1999:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html</a><br /><br />According to the report, Echelon is just one of the many code names for the monitoring system, which consists of satellite interception stations in participating countries. The stations collectively monitor millions of voice and data messages each day. These messages are then scanned and checked against certain key criteria held in a computer system called the "Dictionary." In the case of voice communications, the criteria could include a suspected criminal's telephone number; with respect to data communications, the messages might be scanned for certain keywords, like "bomb" or "drugs." The report also alleges that Echelon is capable of monitoring terrestrial Internet traffic through interception nodes placed on deep-sea communications cables. <br /><br />While few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists, many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information. <br /><br />"The recent revelations about China's spying activities in the U.S. demonstrates that there is a clear need for electronic monitoring capabilities," said Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., who compiled a report on Echelon for the Free Congress Foundation. "But those capabilities can be abused for political or economic purposes so we need to ensure that there is some sort of legislative control over these systems."

[Kellino]

oops

This was intended as a response to another comment. Apparently I mis-clicked and it started a new thread.