It’s hard to believe sometimes, but I began writing this column — in print back then — during the Reagan Administration. It was 1987 and the crisis du jour was called Iran-Contra, remember it? Colonel Oliver North got a radio career out of breaking federal law. The FBI director back then was William Sessions, generally called Judge Sessions because he had been a federal judge. I interviewed Sessions in 1990 about the possibility that American citizens might have their privacy rights violated by an upcoming electronic surveillance law. “What would keep an FBI agent from tapping his girlfriend’s telephone?” I asked, since it would shortly be possible to do so from the agent’s desk.
“It would never happen,” Sessions said.
“How can you say that?”
“Why that would be illegal,” the FBI director explained.
That old interview came to mind as I was thinking about the proposed NSA surveillance sanctions we’ll be hearing about this week. According to the usual leaks to major newspapers, the changes won’t be very much and bulk surveillance of American citizens will continue with maybe a privacy advocate allowed to argue before the FISA Court, though of course none of us will ever know about those secret arguments or how vigorously they are pursued.
Among the substantiated allegations against NSA operatives, by the way, is that several did snoop on their girlfriends, even though doing so was illegal.
What’s to be done then? I think real reform is unlikely so I won’t even suggest it. I’m trying to be practical here.
So just for the sake of discussion here’s my idea how to improve the status quo. Install the FISA privacy advocate, substantially beef-up the inspector-general operation at the NSA and require an annual report on its activities to the people of the USA. Beyond that I’d raise criminal penalties for violating specific privacy guidelines like snooping on past lovers using NSA data or facilities.
I’d apply the death penalty to these.
Violate the privacy of a U.S. citizen as an NSA employee without proper reason and authorization and if you are caught then you die.
Because Judge Sessions was right, of course. Such violations would never happen.
Why that would be illegal.
Too bad the threat of heavy punishment is never a serious deterrent, regardless of whether it’s within the U.S. legal system or in other countries where it may get administered more swiftly and severely. Miscreants simply think “I’m not the one who’s going to get caught” and proceed with their misdeeds anyway.
.
The cookie jar is just sitting there… (I’d say “unwatched,” but you know… NSA. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
I couldn’t agree more. Even the death penalty never had the slightest deterrent effect on the orgy of gun-related homicide in the US. The only serious deterrent is the risk of getting caught. Obviously, the more secret you keep something, the harder it will be for someone to catch you at it.
Cops rarely get more than a wrist slap when caught breaking the law. Most of the time it’s either covered up or justified in some way. If I were in law enforcement and considered breaking the law, I would do it with ABSOLUTELY NO FEAR.
–
That’s what corruption is all about. Laws only apply to us “little people”. If you are in gov, or are rich (especially a large corp), you can do damn near anything you please with no risk.
–
We the people need to put a stop to this, while we still have some freedoms left. Passive or non violent resistance is the key. Prick the giant’s ankles any way you can.
The FISA Court has to go – that’s the main problem, that the NSA and other agencies can argue their case in complete secrecy.
Once the FISA Court is abolished and their machinations are exposed then we should simply open up the NSA operations to the public – I think the NSA would be far more effective in deterring plots against the US if everyone know what they were doing. After all, “What’s the point of a doomsday machine if you keep it secret?” (Dr Strangelove).
so this means after snooping google and with that a lot americans – even on the mirror in the UK – they all go to jail ! about time for it.
It’s interesting to note, though, that without the fastidious record-keeping of Glenn Mulcaire, whose records of his work as a private investigator for News of the World detonated Hack-gate, the perfidious midden that News International had become under the leadership of Rebekah Brooks might never have been exposed.
I have the very strongest suspicion that all the tabloids were at it; they just never got caught. The hunt’s not yet over, though, and I wonder how many employees, agents, and executives sleep uneasily to this day as a result.
No, not ‘go to jail’, die.
Ha, ha, you and Bob are so funny.
Pull the other one, mate, it’s got bells on.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, did that guy Mencken ever get you down to a t.
It would be interesting to find out just how many criminals have been arrested due to NSA snooping. To quote Benjamin Franklin:
“Any society that gives up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
The main problem isn’t the law, it’s the INTERPRETATION of the law. As broadcast to the entire nation on 60 Minutes last night, the NSA believes it has the right to collect any data, on any person, anywhere in the world, including the US, and put it in a database, indexed for searching. Only when an actual query is run does the NSA believe it has to abide by the 4th Amendment privacy protections. This completely turns the 4th Amendment on its head.
Can the government legally “collect” your data, all of it? That’s the question.
While I do not care for D. Cheney his recent and stable draconian take on all this is that these are not your records but the phone/telcom’s records. Putting the dots together when a query is warranted should be a good thing. What beyond 9/11 legal understanding is in violoation? A bigger issue that is ignored is local ordinances which prohibit without permit the right to assemble in public. This is a much bigger issue and meerly accepted by all. So quickly 2 or 3 people can have their 1st Amendment rights removed which if the exercisers are determined to pursue leads to the loss of 4 amendment in which for no due cause you will be searched and arrested for meeting as a group in public space.
new today.
Judge Leon also emphasized that he was unpersuaded by the government’s claims that the program served the public interest, pointedly noting that it failed to cite “a single instance in which analysis of the N.S.A.’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive.”
I would never watch 60 Minutes, or for that matter any crap on TV. But that is a fascinating argument.
–
By that logic, they can break into every house — search, meticulously catalog and video record everything there. As long as they use a third party and don’t look at the video until a court gives them permission. Sounds good. They should start the door to door searches immediately.
I’m starting to think the only thing that will really protect the Internet is an amendment to the constitution. The courts have always said that wires are not the same as letters in envelopes when it comes to privacy. OK, if that’s the case we need a few sentences, clearly stating that yes, wires are the same as letters and our right to privacy extends into virtual space. It simply makes no sense that I can sit in my house, you can sit in your house, and we have a conversation through “the aether” and even though the 4th amendment protects us from having snooping policemen sitting in our house listening to each side, there’s no protection at all from the space in between.
And given what some politicians do on the Internet (Anthony Weiner comes to mind), you’d think they’d be in favor of stronger privacy laws.
The NSA has a backlog of work taking care of whistleblowers. Once they have dealt that that problem, they promise to turn their attention to the girlfriend snoopers and the rest.
They can solve the problem with their own technology. Snoop on the snoopers. Keep a log of every login and every key stroke.
It will also protect them from the next Snowden. People do behave differently when they are being watched.
Any snooping on the ex, will be known and immediately flagged.
Of course, I would like to be the first to bid for IT services on this huge government IT project. Sure, it is just me, but I promise, I will only go $500 million over budget before I don’t deliver any working software.
What about all of the information collected on you by private companies, the smart phones come to mind.
I am reminded of a story from the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. A reporter somehow got hold of a list of every video Bork had rented from a store. It didn’t make much news because Bork hadn’t rented anything scandalous. But later a congressman submitted a bill to make video rentals private. Because if which videos a nominee rents is news, then which videos congressmen rent is news also. Don’t remember if the bill passed, though.
Yes, the Video Privacy Protection Act did pass. Which, many years later, was making it difficult for Netflix to deploy a system to help you share your video watching history on Facebook. Now, the law has just been somewhat relaxed. Amusingly, Feinstein, who is so pro-NSA, does care about your privacy when it’s about what videos you watch.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/287899-thanks-to-new-law-netflix-adds-facebook-sharing-features
[…] ← Gallows humor for the NSA privacy debate […]
To what extent is government spying different from commercial spying? A discussion about individual privacy rights, laws and controls which excludes commercial data mining resources is too narrow to be useful.
Bob said “Violate the privacy of a U.S. citizen as an NSA employee without proper reason and authorization and if you are caught then you die.” The death penalty is for serious crimes. But he did say he was joking with “gallows humor”.
Well I don’t see the NSA going away, so maybe the FISA privacy advocate and inspector general is the best we can do. I don’t know that we’ll ever give up electronic intelligence, even as terrorist threats dim into memory. A tight budget and reducing funding might help.
I do think the “tapping the girlfriend” test or I was thinking “tapping the ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend” test is the right way to think about this. What is in place to prevent this? Apparently nothing at the FBI. Sounds like nothing at the NSA too. I was not aware this went on, although Bob says this was substantiated.
Instead of the death penalty for personal spying, I’d prefer to see the stalker digitally laid bare with all of their personal data posted to some website. Kind of a blog of the damned. You use our system for personal spying and we expose EVERYTHING it has about you online.
[…] Gallows humor for the NSA privacy debate (cringely.com) […]
The criminals in the banking, brokerage, and bond rating communities who abetted the creation and sale of substantially worthless mortgage backed bonds are the ones who should either go to jail or be executed. The same goes for the criminals in the government who issue false or misleading financial reports on inflation, unemployment, and GDP. Likewise for the criminals in the Federal Reserve who issue unbacked paper currency. (I believe the Constitution prescribes severe penalties for issuing counterfeit money.)
Data is an important and powerful thing. In the wrong hands it can be used to wipe out our savings, ruin lives, destroy privacy, etc. Most businesses, organizations, and institutions need data to operate. It is therefore implied and required that they protect that data. This should be a no-brainer.
.
We clearly have too many brainless people managing “data.” We’ve had massive crime — identity thefts, bank accounts and charge cards compromised, etc. In recent years there has been laws and industry mandates requiring, forcing better protection of data. There are still frequent and massive lapses.
.
The NSA has clearly won this years “worst management of data” award. Seriously, how does someone get that much access to so much sensitive data, and was able to take it out of the building! This couldn’t have been a one time thing. It is likely he systematically accessed, copied, and exported the data over a long period of time. No one noticed.
.
If the data is worth collecting, it is worth protecting. The biggest threats to data have been internal, not external. Though external threats are becoming more serious. To “assume” everyone will be responsible is exactly what they say about assuming — making an ass-OF-u-AND-me.
Line up those violators and put a bullet in each of their heads. Oh that’s illegal? Well so was the surveillance!
abolish the FISA court, take the subpoenas to the appropriate Federal district court, and a subpoena should be required for each instance of suspicion. public review by Congress semi-annually.
usual rules are slack enough… “hey, we think Random McDude is looking for bomb kits online based on a confidential informant. we want to search the ISP records and maybe do a B&E to check the computers. take a dog through the garage. pop his trunk. sort his trash. all our usual stuff.”
that is how it works for domestic search. we have documented proof, arrests, and prosecutions of homegrown wackos. we don’t have one case from all this blind snooping to point to.
I think perhaps the death penalty was to instigate conversation, mission accomplished. Most police agencies just fire someone for conducting an illegal investigation. In the case of the NSA, these are all federal jobs, with years of service attached, and the prospect of never having the ability to get another federal job. Course if it were more than checking out an old girlfriend, more severe penalties could be enforced. In this case, and in Snowden’s for instance, I think is a case of a supervisor not doing their job very well. I think adverse actions should apply to them as well. Good security is not a lone wolf model.
Bob’s proposed penalty doesn’t fit the crime. The crime is the illegal acquisition of knowledge. The penalty should be giving it up. Subject whoever possesses stolen knowledge to losing it – a lobotomy should do nicely.
was called Iran-Contra, remember it? Colonel Oliver North got a radio career out of breaking federal law. The FBI director back then was William Sessions, generally called Judge Sessions because he had been a federal judge. I interviewed…
Between blanket immunity deals, overturned prosecutions, unwillingness to prosecute and presidential pardons, rarely does anyone get substantial punishment for crimes like these. It seems as if these criminals’ rights trump everyone else’s or the government has a lot more to lose by prosecuting and convict them.
With every new power comes a new system of checks and balances. Or so it should be. The massive electronic surveillance is now at a stage where we definitely need new rules.
A relatively simple mechanism is so create a separation between data collection and the use of that data. The intel people do have a point when they say that they need to capture the data before it is too late – no time to go to a judge. But if capturing is insured, that argument is gone. Next, the spies can send their search request to the organization that collects and guards the data. At that point, it is possible to inspect their request and see if it is narrow enough and obeys other rules. If the data guardians think it is not ok, there spies can go to a judge.
Search requests can be recorded and after say one year made public. So the spies and the data guardians will know that they will be checked upon.
“…a new system of checks and balances…” For example, let’s say the NSA discovers a plot to take over the world by some foreign power but the only problem with the discovery is that they could not get the required permission from a judge to view the collected data. So they view it anyway and prevent that power from taking over the world. When the story comes out that they viewed the data illegally, the world must be turned over to the foreign power.
REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT! If you do this, you knock the props out from under the NSA as far as domestic surveillance is concerned. And it’s not just the fourth amendment at issue; several amendments are under stress because of electronic monitoring and things are going to continue to get worse as technology advances.