The NSA serves a real purpose. I won’t dispute that. Where I have historically had a problem is when the law is flouted and power goes unchecked. More on the surveillance program came to light yesterday in a piece on the NY Times. The article described how the NSA was flagged by the Justice Department because they had,
“detected issues that raised concerns,†it said. Justice Department officials then “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance†with the law and court orders, the statement said.
The phrase “took comprehensive steps” speaks to me on a level that I care not hear. So, what was the root of what I’m rambling on about?
From NY Times:
The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection†of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
Unintentional. Hmm, that ranks right up there with “the cheque is in the mail”.
Not biting.
But, everything will get better now that the Obama administration is on the job, right?
(play echo)
From the EFF:
The Obama Administration’s shocking decision to assert Bush-era arguments in its motion to dismiss EFF’s case against the government for warrantless wiretapping, Jewel v. NSA, has been slowly working its way into the mainstream news. We’re still hoping for more coverage, but for now there are several examples of recent reporting that are worth pointing to.
Sorry, they’re using Bush-era arguments? Ouch. But, this must all be a misunderstanding, right? Afterall, at least one official said that it was “unintentional”.
From CNET:
The National Security Agency tried to wiretap a member of the U.S. Congress without a warrant, and has engaged in “significant and systemic” illegal surveillance activities in the last few months
Um, yeah. I want to get off now. This ride is making me nauseous.
Dave, you should include the rest of the NYT story about the Congresscritter:
The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.
The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.
@Andy
Fair enough but, where is the evidence? This conjures memories of Tom Ridge standing at the podium telling the world that bad people are out there doing bad things. Lacks substance. Nebulous “officials” give me heartburn.