Today, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act appeal,
seeking disclosure of NPSD 54, the classified Directive that
describes a National Security Agency program to monitor American
computer networks. EPIC submitted the original request to shed light
on the extent of the federal government’s surveillance of civilian
computer systems, but the agency refused to disclose the document.
EPIC’s appeal warns that the NSA’s improper withholding of the
Directive “flatly contravenes” the President’s policy on open
government and “explicit FOIA guidance promulgated by the
Attorney General.” EPIC further stated, without public disclosure
of the Directive, “the government cannot meaningfully make assurances about
the adequacy of privacy and civil liberties safeguards.” For more
information, see EPIC Open Government.
- When the Internet helped foster nationwide protests in Iran, EFF published a new international edition of our Surveillance Self-Defense guide, explaining how dissidents could avoid government eavesdropping and censorship.
- Google’s new Book Search service will track everything you read, creating a dossier that’s ripe for abusive government demands. EFF rallied authors, publishers, and users together to insist that Google tell the government: “Come back with a warrant.”
- Did you know that your cell phone tells people where you are? EFF published a paper outlining new risks to your location privacy and advising technologists on how to fix them.
- Advertisers are finding new and sneaky ways to track your every move online and to create profiles of your personal interests. EFF is pushing Congress to stop them.
No other organization does as much to protect your freedom and privacy in the technological world. Please donate now to support EFF!
ChelleChelle writes “Wiretapping technology has grown increasingly sophisticated since the police first began to utilize it as a surveillance tool in the 1890s. What once entailed simply putting clips on wires has now evolved into building wiretapping capabilities directly into communications infrastructures (at the government’s behest). In a modern society, where surveillance is often touted as a way of ensuring our safety, it is important to take into consideration the risks to our privacy and security that electronic eavesdropping presents. In this article, Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau examine these issues, attempting to answer the important question: does wiretapping actually make us more secure?”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
While John McCain is still hawking that ‘maverick’ tag, don’t believe the hype, instead, let’s look at some recent statements he made that perked my interest, coming out in favor of the Bush administrations’ stance on FISA, warrantless wiretapping/eavesdropping and executive power. Funny thing is, he had the exact opposite opinion on these topics when he was asked in December 2007!
On Wednesday, I documented John McCain’s complete reversal of views — in the last six months alone — on FISA, warrantless eavesdropping and executive power. McCain’s diametrically opposite views were contained in a questionnaire McCain completed for The Boston Globe last December (wherein he rejected many of the Bush/Cheney theories of presidential omnipotence and warrantless eavesdropping) and then a statement McCain issued this week to National Review (wherein he embraced those same theories in order to persuade the Right that he approves of and would continue Bush’s lawless surveillance policies).
Another source states more of what transcribed at the National Review:
A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance…
Wiretaps approved by a secret U.S. court overseeing foreign intelligence rose last year, even as Congress was debating a Bush administration request for more authority to fight terrorism. “The Justice Department said on Wednesday that government applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for wiretap approval rose to 2,371 in 2007, from 2,176 a year earlier. The court’s approval is required to intercept a call involving an American or calls routed through the United States. It was the fifth annual increase in wiretap approvals since the September 11 attacks in 2001 spurred President George W. Bush’s administration to incorporate foreign intelligence wiretaps into its strategy to fight global terrorism. Civil liberties groups and other opponents, angered by a secret warrantless domestic wiretapping program have urged sharp restrictions and oversight of the wiretaps. The latest figures were released as the Justice Department announced it was reorganizing its national security division, which represents the government before the secret court, to cope with the increased workload and staff. The division’s intelligence staff, which has grown to more than 100 lawyers from 20 in 2000, will work in a new office of intelligence, which will be given an expanded role in overseeing foreign wiretapping to ensure it complies with the law.“
EFF has a great writeup of a LAtimes article that covers why the fight against illegal wiretaps and surveillance is so important, and how it threatens our most basic right.
Going back to the ’20s, Sanchez reviews multiple occasions when authorities have used spying powers not to protect the country, but to further the political aims of parties and politicians:
The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts — and the presidents they served — had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices — even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often “collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action.”
Sanchez traces the history of US government surveillance abuses by both Democrats and Republicans throughout the 20th century. He emphasizes that surveillance isn’t just a threat to privacy — it’s a threat to free speech. That’s why today’s wiretapping debate matters, even to those who may think they have nothing to fear.”
This is the bottom line, and why I’m such a ardent supporter of EFF. Feel free to join if you are so inclined, but either way, thanks for reading
