Vampires: FBI Data-Mining Programs Resurrect "Total Information Awareness"

[Truthway]

Like a vampire rising from it's grave each night to feed on the privacy rights of Americans, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is moving forward with programs that drain the life blood from our constitutional liberties.

From the wholesale use of informants and provocateurs to stifle political dissent, to Wi-Fi hacking and viral computer spyware to follow our every move, the FBI has turned massive data-mining of personal information into a growth industry. In the process they are building the surveillance state long been dreamed of by American securocrats.

http://www.inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/12091/2009-10-05.html">http://www.inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/12091/2009-10-05.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. American Crusade 2001+ is alive and well.

[Echo In Light]

2. "With three provisions of the draconian Patriot Act set to expire at years' end

... the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VI) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the committee and chairwoman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, stripped-away privacy protections to proposed legislation that would extend the provisions."

[redqueen]

3. Resurrect? That thing never went away.

They just diced it up and sprinkled parts here and there.

[Octafish]

4. The late Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) talked about this, way back when...

In 1976, Sen. Church wrote that if the powers of the NSA were turned upon the American people, we would no longer be free, as it would be impossible for anyone to organize and oppose the government.

Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping.

PS: Thank you for the important information in your OP. A hearty welcome to DU, Truthway!

[AspenRose]

5. Proud to be #5. K&R

[flyarm]

6. Emptywheel at Firedoglake has been reporting this as well..here see the links..

do read them in entirety..to know what is going on!!

The Total Nail Polish Remover Awareness Program, Brought to You by the Democratic Party
By: emptywheel Sunday October 4, 2009 11:07 am
snip:
Note, too, DiFi's reference to the "transfiguration" of FBI finally in place--is she suggesting that for the first time the FBI has used Total Information Awareness to support terrorist busts?

Later, during the discussion of Durbin's attempt to limit the use of 215 to those with some discernible tie to a terrorist suspect, DiFi claims that such changes would end several investigations.

DiFi (101:31): Secondly, the FBI does not support this amendment. And thirdly, in putting forward this higher standard, it would end several classified and critical investigations. This was one of the amendments that I submitted to you and you were gracious enough to accept it. Senator Sessions is correct. These are authorized investigations and it's a use of the National Security Letter in an authorized investigation. So, as I said, a standard for me is that this not interfere in existing investigations, and in fact it would.

Understand the implications of that comment. If DiFi is right (Feingold doesn't buy it), it means there are "several" counterterrorism investigations going on that rely on collecting business records and/or tangible things on people who have no discernible tie to terrorism. They may already have that giant database of people who have recently purchase nail polish remover and other acetone or hydrogen peroxide products.

Now, if it were just DiFi, I'd assume this is a bunch of fear-mongering. But Whitehouse endorses Feinstein's argument (though Feingold immediately rebuts both their claims).

Whitehouse (107:36): I just want to associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Feinstein, and to say that as my colleagues have a chance to review the classified materials that support her concern that this amendment would interfere with ongoing programs and also find an explanation as to why an earlier vote on a related subject may have been unanimous that no longer would make sense.

Feingold: On that point, I'm aware of the classified information Senator Feinstein and Senator Whitehouse are discussing and I strongly disagree that this three-part standard would harm national security, would be unworkable or cause the consequences that they've indicated.




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How Republicans (and a Few Democrats) Avoided Limits on Section 215
By: emptywheel Monday October 5, 2009 12:27 pm http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/10/05/how-republicans-avoided-limits-on-section-215/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Conyers to Holder: Give Us the 215 Info
By: emptywheel Monday October 5, 2009 4:58 pm http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/10/05/conyers-to-holder-give-us-the-215-info/

I guess I'm not the only one who noticed that DOJ is trying to reauthorize Section 215 without leveling with the American people how they're using it. John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Bobby Scott have written Eric Holder, requesting that he make more information on the way Section 215 is used public.

In order to meaningfully consider whether and how to extend the "business records" section of the Act, however, we ask that the Department work to provide additional public information on the use of that provision.

Specifically, at the September 22 hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hinnen testified that orders under Section 215 of the Act, which authorizes compulsory production of "business records," have been used to obtain "transactional information" to support "important and highly sensitive intelligence collection." He explained that some members of the Subcommittee and cleared staff have received some briefings on this topic, and that additional information could be made available to them "in a classified setting."

We have appreciated the information that has been provided, and fully understand the importance of safeguarding our country's national security secrets. Too often in 2007 and 2008, however, crucial information remained unknown to the public and many members of Congress when Congress voted on important surveillance legislation affecting the interests of all Americans. As has also been requested in the Senate, we ask that the Department work to make publicly available additional basic information on the use of Section 215, so that Congress can more openly and thoroughly consider the future of this authority while fully protecting our national security secrets.


wow ..this is really change i can believe in........
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :eyes: :mad:

[fooj]

7. Thanks for these links!

I guess the "mask" has come off, eh?

Ironically, when I read the OP's reference to "stifling political dissent" the first thing I thought of was the "unrecommend" policy here at DU. Hmmmmmm... Interesting that.

How does one reconcile a President who reportedly specialized in Constitutional Law pulling this type of bullshit on the citizens of this country?

When will enough be enough? :banghead:

[Trillo]

8. If anyone or even everyone is watched closely enough

any law or laws they're unknowingly breaking can probably be found. Then selective targeting, followed by threats of prosecution can be used, to make their life the opposite of "pursuit of happiness", while those with money for Hired Guns (AKA attorney) can hide their heads in the sands of denial and say there's plenty of happiness.

(I'm not an attorney, these are just my thoughts)

When we have decades and centuries of laws written by corporate lobbyists, and thousands and thousands of pages of it, it is impossible for anyone to know all the laws. Even the lawyers specialize now, or so I've read.

Consequently, getting a warrant seems to have at least two purposes, both related to the same thing. One is that "probable cause" needs to be "reasonable". Watching someone all the time just waiting for them to break some law, any law, so they can be busted is "probably" not reasonable, and it seems one of the characteristics of a "police state". The second purpose is to remove the human bias related to perception of "probable cause", by requiring a judge to sign a warrant upon some set of observed circumstances that grant legitimate probable cause. Any private entity, or a police entity, or a prosecutor, cannot rise to this standard of lack-of-bias.

Vacuuming up all communications for analysis, and possible targeting, also essentially creates a compliance to what is obviously a corporate standard of law. Now that doesn't seem so bad at first, since all laws are supposedly passed by our legislators, but in thinking of bigger picture items, since when have private citizens been able to deduct their "expenses" in their entirety in the same way corporate is allowed to?

These huge hypocrisies need to be peacefully ended. Transparency of them helps, but that can also be used to remind us day in and day out that the Big Entities can lie with virtual impunity, while simultaneously it is proved to us with every bill we get, with any citations or infractions we receive, with even a cross look of contempt in the eyes or a certain tone of quiet voice by authority figure implying threat, that us mere humans cannot.

[gkhouston]

10. Unknowingly? Try uncaringly. n/t

[Trillo]

11. Can you please clarify?

You wrote: "Unknowingly? Try uncaringly."

I used that word in the following sentence, "If anyone or even everyone is watched closely enough any law or laws they're unknowingly breaking can probably be found."

So rewriting the sentence results in "If anyone or even everyone is watched closely enough any law or laws they're uncaringly breaking can probably be found".

Do you agree this is what you meant by your reply to me?

[gkhouston]

12. My apologies; I read too hastily and mixed up my pronouns. I thought that

"they" was referring to the eavesdroppers, not the eavesdroppees. Whether those being spied upon would care or even be aware that they're violating a law is unknown, but at this late date, agencies like the FBI clearly must not care that the surveillance techniques are illegal.

[gkhouston]

9. self-delete; wrong place. n/t