Robert Cringely: Hitler on Line One

[crispini]

Interesting article on the history of wiretapping. The entire article is well worth reading. Check out one of his conclusions, snipped and bolded below. Seems to substantiate what a lot have been saying here on DU:

January 19, 2006
Hitler on Line One
There's a Long History of Intercepting Foreign Communications, and Some of It May Have Been Legal
By Robert X. Cringely

Who is listening-in on your phone calls? Probably nobody. Right now, there is huge interest in phone tapping in the United States because the Bush Administration (through the National Security Agency) was caught listening in without appropriate court orders. What I have noticed is that, for all the talking and writing on this subject, there seems to be very little real information being presented. So this column is my attempt to share what I've learned about the topic. It might surprise you.

... (snip) ...


Is all of this worth worrying about? What led me on this quest in the first place was the fact that I simply couldn't understand why the Administration felt the need to go beyond FISA, given that the court nearly always granted warrants and warrants could be done retroactively. But does it really matter? I didn't know whether to be outraged or bored, and I feared that most Americans were in similar positions.

Given that this is all about National Security, we'll probably never know the full answer. Even if the proper research is conducted and answers obtained, they won't be shared with you or me. But here's a hint from a lawyer who used to be in charge of exactly these compliance issues for one of the largest RBOCs: "While it is true the FISA court approves nearly all applications submitted to it, this is due primarily to the close vetting the DOJ attorneys give to applications before they are submitted to the court. In fact, the FISA appellate court noted that the DOJ standards had been higher than the statute required. I am unaware that the court has 'retroactively' approved any electronic surveillance that was not conducted in an emergency situation. There are four emergency situations enumerated in the statute. Even in an emergency, the government has to apply for approval of what they have already started or in some case finished and these applications have to meet the same strict standards as any other application."

So the probable answer is that the several hundred NSA communication intercepts wouldn't have qualified for submission by the DoJ to the FISA court, and some of those might not have qualified for FISA court orders even if they had been submitted. It looks like the difference between using a rifle or a shotgun, with the Bush Administration clearly preferring the shotgun approach. Only time will tell, though, if what they are doing is legal.

.... more ...

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060119.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Cringely forgot to google echelon or read newsweek

and is falling for the current bullshit that we are talking about "several hundred NSA communication intercepts" rather than echelon snarfing of voice/data switches.

Gak. I am disgusted by the media.

[zbdent]

2. How long before Hitler calls from the grave and complains

that his image is being tarnished by associating it with the Bush misAdministration . . .?