Hey, people, I just realized what the FISA thing is about. It's about VoIP spying.

[Kagemusha]

I've read Sen. Webb's statement. (I commented on the thread here.) I've been mulling the statements being made, the talk of the secret FISA ruling, the debate over foreign vs. domestic communications, and nothing really made sense until it finally clicked after reading this, from a Daily Kos main page titled "Stop Being Characters in Their Story". The last word is the key one:

"There was no indication that lawmakers were responding to new intelligence warnings. Rather, Democrats were responding to administration pleas that a recent secret court ruling had created a legal obstacle in monitoring foreign communications relayed over the Internet."

The Internet.

So we're talking about VoIP (Voice over IP). Internet phone. That's why people are ranting about "updating FISA for the 21st century" and about changes in technology and so on and so forth. That's what the secret FISA court ruling refers to. That's why the Democrats in Congress don't have any understanding of what the hell they're approving.

When the explanations of what the court ruled came out, no one explained - probably because no one in the media understood - that this was about VoIP. So, while I'm no great expert, I can at least guess that the real issue is, FISA doesn't even require a warrant whatsoever - not after the fact, not before the fact - if a call is purely foreign. That's because the FI in FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence. The President is expected to spy on America's foreign enemies if it's in the national interest; Congress just wanted to make sure that Americans aren't being abused by the process, because they and resident non-citizens have constitutional rights that the President is supposed to respect.

So, here's the deal.

Internet data is routed in all sorts of ways, with many major hubs of the Internet being in the US (rather unsurprisingly). Therefore, a foreign-to-foreign VoIP message might well be routed through a US server at some point. The administration wants to grab that data and send it straight to the NSA (with compliance by friendly ISP's) without warrants, without oversight, without fuss. No need for a foreign wiretap; they can just wiretap US domestic ISP's. Hey, it's foreigners, right?

So here's the rub. How does the administration KNOW that the recipient of the VoIP call is also a foreign resident? I mean, the admin can know that the sender is foreign. But this is the Internet. How can the government know for sure that the recipient is not a US citizen?

If we can believe the rumblings about how this has panned out, the answer is, IT CAN'T. That's why a judge said, you need warrants because one of the parties MAY be an American citizen.

This is what is intolerable to Bush. This is a court saying that people who could be spied on without batting an eye, without the need for any warrant, for purely foreign intelligence purposes (or at least that's the stated intent!), suddenly needs to have the same warrant based system for spying on American citizens in contact with possible, suspected terrorists.

Now, there's no reason why Bush didn't just immediately demand the Hill address this except for strategic purposes, dragging this out exactly when Congress is just about to go off for its recess, sending the head intel man to frighten the children, wave around all this "In-ter-net" language that these Senators (Feinstein comes immediately to mind) don't understand and probably never will, and railroad the Congress into enabling the chief intel man and AG Gonzales to jointly approve spying on someone REASONABLY BELIEVED to be a foreign person for up to one calendar year.

So let me spell it out: if they know for sure one is a foreign person, and they believe that the VoIP recipient is probably a foreign person - and even if they honestly believe that, remember that this is based on not one single thing more than a hunch - they can approve spying on the communications of BOTH people, the person they know is on foreign soil perpetually, the one they "think" is on foreign soil, for one year.

Of course, this involves a lot of trust on Congress' part that this domestic spying on "foreign" targets is going to actually take place against genuinely foreign targets. Totally besides this, I do have one outstanding question: okay, what happens if the VoIP recipient really is a resident and/or citizen of the US, for whom spying on him or her would normally require a FISA warrant because of that pesky Constitution?

Sounds to me like Gonzales gets to spy on that person's VoIP communications (at the very least) for an entire year with complete impunity. I don't know for sure - that's just what it sounds like. And of course we're trusting that this new authority will be used properly and legitimately.

Because who would ever believe that this administration might abuse such power?

(Disclaimer: I'm basing my conclusion that this is on VoIP on an awful lot of circumstantial evidence. I'm confident in my analysis but, none of this should be construed as firm, hard knowledge or anything of an insider basis in any way, shape, or form.)

[babylonsister]

1. It doesn't matter now; Congress apparently trusts them. nt

[Missy Vixen]

2. Follow the campaign contributions

I know I'd be interested to find out how much Verizon spent with the Bushies, as opposed to companies like Vonage. We all know that anyone who uses a different technology than a land line must be a terrorist, hm?

In the meantime, I'm just disgusted.
Julie

[givemebackmycountry]

3. Very astute - and I work for a major telecom and I've considered this -

SO -

So, what does Vonage/Time Warner/Comcast who all have major agreements with AT&T - Sprint-Nextel - Verizon have to say about this?

Major Corporations are complicit in the eroding of our Constitution.
The elimination of our civil rights.
The death of our freedoms.

Who ever does not think that CORPORATIONS are driving us into a ditch we may never get out of, better wake up.

They monitor our e-mail, and you better believe our posts on DU and other websites.

It's only natural that VoIP is next.

Soon, they will be intercepting what goes into our mailboxes.

America - WE ARE FREE!

Yeah, right.

kicked and nominated and everything else for the truth -

GOOD JOB

[illinoisprogressive]

4. congress is full of fools. People who are not tech savvy or understand it at all.

nor would they bother to have people help them to. We needed newer blood other than just democrats. We needed newer aged people.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. julie, open secrets has contributions to congress. we can follow that at least.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. AT&T is one of Bush's biggest contributors.

[redacted]

7. I'm not so sure. Two decades ago I worked for an RBOC, and even at that time,

almost every voice phone call over that firm's network was at some point converted to digital and packetized. The cost savings were tremendous.

Virtually no voice phone call today is analog. It's all digital, even down to DSL local loops. This is why I think the Mystery Poster is absolutely dead on when he/she/they is warning that the scope of the domestic invasions of privacy are far, far broader than any of us have been led to believe so far. They're sucking up everything, and VoIP internet voice phone calls calls are a tiny fraction of all that network traffic.

[Kagemusha]

10. But there's no reason for a judge to rule against this otherwise.

If it's just digital packaging of a regular voice call, the receiver and sender should both be crystal clear to the government and there should be absolutely no question what calls are properly beyond the jurisdiction of the FISA court to even whimper about. I'm not going to assume that the judge simply made a horrible ruling that violates the intent of the law that hasn't been appealed or overturned in the intervening several months.

...Actually, I only just realized that there must have been an appeal, which a generous person might reason would account for some of the delay in bringing this to Congress. But certainly not all. It's too politically convenient.

[L. Coyote]

8. Did Bush's Secrecy Endangered America? YES! Hiding Truth, Spying, FISA, and Trust Gonzo.

Did Bush's Secrecy Endangered America? YES! Hiding Truth, Spying, FISA, and Trust Gonzo.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1514312

A. Many months ago, a FISA court secretly ruled that it was illegal for the NSA to intercept communications routed through the USA.

B. Bush did nothing, except, of course, not reveal the secret ruling about the secret spying, because he had secretly violated the law himself.

C. Many months later, the secret FISA court ruling is revealed.

D. Bush blames Dems for not getting the fix on his desk overnight, want warrantless spying as a solution, and wants Gonzo to be the decider.

Geeee-eez, who needs math? Bush should have had this fixed overnight, many months ago, instead of guarding the secret!

NOW, in a masterful magic show of distraction, Bush and the Rs changed the issue by proposing that Gonzo be the decider on authorizing warrantless surveillance of Americans. Clever as all hell as distractions go, and everyone is falling for their sleight-of-hand magic show. But, didn't the Administration know about this when the FISA court handed down the ruling? ABSOLUTELY. But, they hid their dirty secret for political gain, and, epitomizing cynicism, now, when revealed, use it as a political tool.

CONCLUSION: Bush endangered America, knowing fully well the NSA could not legally intercept Al Queda communications routed through the USA, rather than let his dirty secrets get out! Damn simple. Who needs math? (Or maybe, he was violating the law and doing the spying anyway, so no worries mates.)

Tell me if I got any of this wrong, please.

And, which of the following is the likelier Bush scenario

A. illegally spying anyway, or
B. not fixing the problem to hide past crimes?

[BadgerKid]

9. I'm not so sure...this is about giving DHS an FBI power

A few years ago the FBI was reported as wanting to have wiretapping hardware installed at universities to monitor traffic. (You know, that whole "foreign students are automatically terraists"). A web search revealed an article discussing that the FBI wanted then to get their hands on VoIP:

Big brother wants a window into VoIP at any cost
By Nate Anderson | Published: July 27, 2006 - 05:56PM CT
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7372.html


I followed this back to CALEA:

"CALEA Compliance for Packet Equipment, And Equipment for Facilities-Based Broadband Internet Access Providers and Providers of Interconnected VoIP

All facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP service have until May 14, 2007 to come into compliance with CALEA."
http://www.fcc.gov/calea/

So, VoIP has already been subject to surveillance for several months.

Furthermore, there is the question of whether the FBI is part of the Dept. of Homeland Security. According to Wikipedia, both the FBI and CIA were excluded from the inception of DHS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security

[The Vinyl Ripper]

11. If you know, or even suspect, that someone is listening..

It's really not hard to disguise what you are talking about..

Euphemisms, circumlocutions, the Arabic equivalent of pig Latin, single use code pads, whatever.

Idday ouyay uybay ethay ombay?

Just let a computer try to figure that one out.. :)

I'm old enough to remember "party line" phones and you *always* treated any conversation as being eavesdropped upon.

The bad guys know lots of low tech ways around all this high tech spying widgetry.

Esperanto for instance..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Steganography is another option too..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography