US warrantless wiretapping predates 9.11

[buckthesystem]

So much for "the rules changed on 9.11" eh? Now all we need is for governments to admit that "anti-terrorist" legislation predated 9.11 also.

________________________________________________________________________________

____

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/wa...tapping_latest/

Fuel to the fire

By John Leyden

Find out how your peers are dealing with Virtualization

Fresh evidence has emerged that the US government's warrantless wiretapping program predates the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Secret surveillance operations that enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to access telecommunications traffic data have been in place since the 1990s, according to the New York Times. In an attempt to gain intelligence on narcotics traffickingThe NSA forged an uneasy alliance with telcos to gather data on phone calls and emails from the US to Latin America.

The alliance between the US government and telcos to gather call records involving thousands of US and foreign citizens was constrained by legal worries and fears of public exposure. Even so, it took until 2004 for one unnamed carrier to break ranks and refuse to provide customer data, the paper reports.

Separately, US carrier Qwest refused to provide NSA spooks with access to local communications switches (a move that would have allowed surveillance of domestic phone calls without a court order) in early 2001 - before the devastating World Trade Center attacks in September that year.

Negotiations between the NSA and AT&T in February 2001 allegedly involved replicating a New Jersey network centre to allow the US signals intelligence "access to all the global phone and email traffic that ran through it". The incident has become one aspect of a lawsuit which also brings in allegations that Verizon set up a dedicated fibre-optic line from New Jersey to a large military facility in Quantico. Spooky.

An AT&T technician at the time has provided evidence supporting the allegations. However, other AT&T technicians are due to testify that the project was confined to improving internal communications within the NSA.

News that the NSA eavesdropped on the international communications of terrorism suspects making calls from the US without warrants first emerged two years ago. The latest revelations that this was a development of a much longer running practice that also involved US domestic calls come as the Bush administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation indemnifying telecoms carriers from liability in assisting law enforcement with warrantless eavesdropping programs. Since 2005, the warrantless wiretapping program has become the topic of 40 lawsuits.

[redwing]

So much for "the rules changed on 9.11" eh? Now all we need is for governments to admit that "anti-terrorist" legislation predated 9.11 also.

________________________________________________________________________________

____

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/wa...tapping_latest/

Fuel to the fire

By John Leyden

Find out how your peers are dealing with Virtualization

Fresh evidence has emerged that the US government's warrantless wiretapping program predates the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Secret surveillance operations that enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to access telecommunications traffic data have been in place since the 1990s, according to the New York Times. In an attempt to gain intelligence on narcotics traffickingThe NSA forged an uneasy alliance with telcos to gather data on phone calls and emails from the US to Latin America.

The alliance between the US government and telcos to gather call records involving thousands of US and foreign citizens was constrained by legal worries and fears of public exposure. Even so, it took until 2004 for one unnamed carrier to break ranks and refuse to provide customer data, the paper reports.

Separately, US carrier Qwest refused to provide NSA spooks with access to local communications switches (a move that would have allowed surveillance of domestic phone calls without a court order) in early 2001 - before the devastating World Trade Center attacks in September that year.

Negotiations between the NSA and AT&T in February 2001 allegedly involved replicating a New Jersey network centre to allow the US signals intelligence "access to all the global phone and email traffic that ran through it". The incident has become one aspect of a lawsuit which also brings in allegations that Verizon set up a dedicated fibre-optic line from New Jersey to a large military facility in Quantico. Spooky.

An AT&T technician at the time has provided evidence supporting the allegations. However, other AT&T technicians are due to testify that the project was confined to improving internal communications within the NSA.

News that the NSA eavesdropped on the international communications of terrorism suspects making calls from the US without warrants first emerged two years ago. The latest revelations that this was a development of a much longer running practice that also involved US domestic calls come as the Bush administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation indemnifying telecoms carriers from liability in assisting law enforcement with warrantless eavesdropping programs. Since 2005, the warrantless wiretapping program has become the topic of 40 lawsuits.

what ever it takes.

[buckthesystem]

what ever it takes.

This really is significant. It means that the US government were in fear of getting found out that they were wiretapping without a warrant and were so desperate to justify it and have people say "what ever it takes" (to defeat the terrorists) that they blamed it on "9.11".

That is amazingly dishonest.

I really don't know why it was ever considered necessary to have warrantless wiretapping in any circumstances. Surely if it was that important, they would have had no trouble getting a warrant.

However, doesn't it make you wonder how many other things were planned anyway, and have been blamed on "9.11" and the public have fallen for it?

I know that our own "anti-terrorism" legislation (such as it was compared to other countries' legislation) was just a re-hash of legislation that they'd tried to pass time and time again and failed. All they needed was a good enough excuse.

[rtwo]

Many people who've paid attention are already aware of this. It started with Clinton, or at least, continued during his tenure. During the discussions on the Patriot Act, Bush made it plain that certain wiretapping of calls placed to known terrorists from inside the US would be tapped.

I still don't have a problem with it.

[buckthesystem]

Many people who've paid attention are already aware of this. It started with Clinton, or at least, continued during his tenure. During the discussions on the Patriot Act, Bush made it plain that certain wiretapping of calls placed to known terrorists from inside the US would be tapped.

I still don't have a problem with it.

So you're openly saying that wiretapping without a warrant had nothing to do with "9.11" despite "9.11" being used as the excuse to violate the constitution?

So what is the excuse now? "We're just tired of following the rules and feel that we should be above the law and the not have to follow the constitution"? And you are fine with that? Gee I wonder if you will change your mind when it is you or someone you are close to who is accused of "terrorism", has their communications intercepted without due process and ends up incommunicado in Gitmo.

[rtwo]

the wiretapping involved here doesn't violate the constitution. You'd be, presumably, referring to the "search and seziure" clause -- but it's arguable that it applies. I'd say it does not.

There is no constitutional right to privacy. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.

[buckthesystem]

the wiretapping involved here doesn't violate the constitution. You'd be, presumably, referring to the "search and seziure" clause -- but it's arguable that it applies. I'd say it does not.

There is no constitutional right to privacy. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.

I have always taken the fourth amendment to be a "constitutional right to privacy". As: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That sure sounds to me like it is all about privacy.

How, exactly, do you figure that the fourth amendment doesn't apply to wiretapping? Do you somehow reason that as electronic communication wasn't around when the constitution was penned, it is exempted from having "the rules" apply to it? I'd say that the words "(be secure in their...) papers and effects ............" would cover electronic communication.

So I really don't see how you have convinced yourself that "the wiretapping here doesn't violate the constitution".