Obama administration wants more warrantless surveillance of Americans, Daily Kos, July 29, 2010, by Joan McCarter, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

As Yglesias says, “The End of Probable Cause.” WaPo reports:

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual’s Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the “content” of e-mail or other Internet communication.

This power would be conferred upon the same FBI whose agents have “cheated on tests on how to legally conduct domestic surveillance cases.” Maybe this is just the administration’s way of making sure these people won’t have to cheat on future tests–not they won’t have to worry about the pesky details of conducting domestic surveillance legally, since they won’t have to worry about warrants.

Matt raises the question of “misused work resources . . . for personal purposes.” The larger concern, and anybody who lived through Nixon and is old enough to remember it will share it, is the very real potential for the systematic misuse of information for political purposes. It’s happened before and will happen again, and our government should at least have to go through the niceties of taking actual legal steps in order to spy on us. As Matt also points out, it’s not that hard. All it takes is “some kind of cause—probable cause, let’s say—to suspect someone of involvement in terrorism, [is to] just get a warrant.”

Probable cause and warrants. The stuff of democracy. The stuff, in fact, of the Constitution, the fourth amendment to be precise.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See ‘Private’ Browsing Sessions Not As Private As You Think, The Huffington Post, July 29, 2010, by Catherine Smith, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Surfing the Internet with a web browser’s “private mode” enabled may not keep users’ information as safe as they think, Switched reports, citing research conducted at Carnegie Mellon University.

Carnegie Mellon’s Collin Jackson told New Scientist that some sites may leave data on a computer’s hard drive, even if they were accessed while private browsing was enabled, effectively providing traces of what sites you’ve visited.

As Jackson and his team note, “sites visited while browsing in private mode should leave no trace on the user’s computer.” And yet, Jackson tells New Scientist that a hacker could “guess what sites you’ve been to based on traces left behind.” Switched summarizes the dilemma: “when your average surfer turns on the private mode in a browser, they expect their tracks to be erased, and erased they’re not.”

See Breaking a Promise on Surveillance, N.Y. Times Editorial, July 29, 2010, excerpt quoted verbatim:

It is just a technical matter, the Obama administration says: We just need to make a slight change in a law to make clear that we have the right to see the names of anyone’s e-mail correspondents and their Web browsing history without the messy complication of asking a judge for permission.

It is far more than a technical change. The administration’s request, reported Thursday in The Washington Post, is an unnecessary and disappointing step backward toward more intrusive surveillance from a president who promised something very different during the 2008 campaign.

In a 1993 update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Congress said that Internet service providers have to turn over to the F.B.I., on request, “electronic communication transactional records.” The government says this includes the e-mail records of their subscribers, specifically the addresses to which e-mail messages were sent, and the times and dates. (The content of the messages can remain private.) It may also include Web browsing records. To get this information, the F.B.I. simply has to ask for it in the form of a national security letter, which is an administrative request that does not require a judge’s signature.

But there was an inconsistency in the writing of the 1993 law. One section said that Internet providers had to turn over this information, but the next section, which specified what the F.B.I. could request, left out electronic communication records. In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion saying this discrepancy meant the F.B.I. could no longer ask for the information. Many Internet providers stopped turning it over. Now the Obama administration has asked Congress to make clear that the F.B.I. can ask for it.

Jay Rockefeller — “It would have been better if the internet had never existed” – CSpan2 — 2:45 Amazing.

See Gates Assails WikiLeaks Over Release of Reports, July 29, 2010, by Charlie Savage.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google