Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

Thomas Schoene wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Kevin Willoughby wrote:
:
: :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
: :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:
: And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you.

Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
not the only form of rights involved.

WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
information.

Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
its ability to ruin your life is greater. It's quite legal for your
employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
subject to the same rules.)

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?

It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
while the net is still largely in legal no-man's-land. While it might
seem reasonable that analogous rules should apply, that is not yet an
established legal principle. And if and when it becomes one, the result
is likely to be more privacy for the net, not less privacy for phones.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA.

What makes you think there was no explanation?

Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
obey your noodly master a bit better.


I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke Cunningham
bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
Alias. "SHE" is my only master~


s

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.

As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.



That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
accountable to the public, their policies are public and
established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
processes.

It's through all those open and democratic processes of
oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
taking place and change/punish when it has. With
secret agencies we cannot do any of that.


The President has yet to clearly state under what law
the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.

To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
great big policing machine?

Congress has always been clear they wish the two
to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
branch of govt gets to decide.


Jonathan

s






"jonathan" wrote


And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
role of his agency in the article.

"the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."

That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
changed, again in the directors own words.


"The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
supports
these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
Strategic
Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
Guidance."

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to
date."



Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
did whatever they pleased.

And the public is just now beggining to find out.



NGA homepage
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01...ront_door=true

NGA history
http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

The NSG Mission

http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/St...gic_intent.pdf



Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! grin


You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
and hence the truth.

I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?


s

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you.

Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
not the only form of rights involved.


If I were into a lot of conspiracy theories, this would throw the
whole criminal prosecution of Qwest upper management into a whole new
light.

The legal precedences are related to an item called a pen register.

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

The law is specific... It requires a warrant to log the info
according to the Pen Register Act. That has *never* been done
in this case and the specific request by Qwest executives for
this to be done was rejected out of hand by the NSA reps. And,
while the requirement is very loose (they do not need to provide
a probably cause), the fact the NSA did not request it is
troubling.

Between FISA and the other laws, the legal regime is clearly
defined. The Patriot Act did not change any legal requirements
for issuing any call tracing, only expanded the legal regime to
cover the Internet. It requires a warrant and since it is a very
specific set of laws enacted by Congress, it can not be overturned
by an Executive Order. The President was not given discretionary
powers in this matter. Executive Orders only apply to non-defined
legal regimes. When there is a direct conflict between an Executive
Order and a law passed by Congress, the Congressional Law has
precedence.

Henry Spencer wrote:

How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
are in power ???


Plenty. It's a bipartisan issue, much though Republicans would like to
think otherwise.

The difference is that when it's Republicans, the media trumpets it on
the front pages, but when it's Democrats, it's downplayed and buried on
the inside pages, when it's covered at all. The behavior may be
bipartisan, but the coverage certainly isn't.

jonathan wrote:

But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA.

What makes you think there was no explanation?

Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
obey your noodly master a bit better.



I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke Cunningham
bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
Alias. "SHE" is my only master~

Gee, I "heard yesterday" that you molest children, and probably with as
much basis.

Just because you're unaware of the true explanation doesn't mean that it
lacks existence.

Henry Spencer wrote:

WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.


Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
information.

Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
its ability to ruin your life is greater.

And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
being done at all.

Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?

It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,

There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
records of calls is not "eavesdropping."

Thanks for the helpful post!

"Charles Buckley" wrote
"In 1986, the Supreme Court decided the case of Dow Chemical v. United
States, by and through the Administrator, Environmental Agency, 476 U.S.
227, 106 S. Ct. 1819, 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 (May 19, 1986).
.

The court then tackled Dow's Fourth amendment arguments. In a 5-4
decision, the court held that the taking of aerial photography without a
warrant was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Dow argued
that the taking of the photos was akin to snooping into the "curtilage" of
a private home, which is granted protection as a place where occupants
have a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is willing to
accept. The court rejected the industrial curtilage argument, finding that
the unenclosed commercial area is more like an "open field." What is
observable by the public is also observable by the Government inspector,
without a warrant. "

Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?




"jonathan" wrote in message
news

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.

As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.



That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
accountable to the public, their policies are public and
established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
processes.

It's through all those open and democratic processes of
oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
taking place and change/punish when it has. With
secret agencies we cannot do any of that.


The President has yet to clearly state under what law
the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.

To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
great big policing machine?

Congress has always been clear they wish the two
to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
branch of govt gets to decide.


Jonathan

s






"jonathan" wrote


And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
role of his agency in the article.

"the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."

That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
changed, again in the directors own words.


"The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
supports
these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
Strategic
Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
Guidance."

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to
date."



Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
did whatever they pleased.

And the public is just now beggining to find out.



NGA homepage
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01...ront_door=true

NGA history
http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

The NSG Mission

http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/St...gic_intent.pdf



Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! grin


You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
and hence the truth.

I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?


s