Tech | October 20, 2010 | 106 comments

Obama To Ease Warantless Wiretapping, Wants To Include Gmail, Facebook, BlackBerry and Skype

source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/ease-telecom-wiretapping-report/

Image
Talk about money going down the drain... make sure you check out the New York Times link included in this article.

Article:
"An Obama administration taskforce is seeking to overhaul a federal law requiring telephone and broadband carriers to ensure their networks can be wiretapped, The New York Times reported Tuesday (link).

Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the FBI and other federal agencies told the Times tougher legislation was necessary because some telecommunications firms have launched new services and system upgrades that impede surveillance.

As part of their draft legislation to expand and strengthen the 1994 law, the officials want more legal incentives and penalties to push AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other carriers to make sure any changes to their networks will not disrupt efforts to conduct wiretaps, the report added.

According to the Times, President Barack Obama's administration intends to submit a package of draft legislation to Congress next year. Citing officials familiar with the deliberations, it noted there was still no agreement over the details.

Officials cited two previously undisclosed episodes during which major carriers struggled for weeks or months when they tried to comply with court-approved wiretap orders in criminal or terrorism investigations.
Story continues below...

The newspaper said the FBI spends about 20 million dollars a year on efforts to help companies fix such problems.

Last month, the Times reported that the White House is also pushing to require all online services that enable communications -- such as Gmail, Facebook, BlackBerry and Skype -- to be technically capable of complying with a wiretap order, bringing them under the law's mandate for the first time.

Among proposals floated by the Obama administration, one would increase the likelihood that a firm would pay a fine for wiretapping lapses, while another would create incentives for companies to show new systems to the FBI before implementing them, the Times said."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/ease-telecom-wiretapping-report/
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   US Politics,   Law and Justice,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics,  Current TV,  Obama,  22 more
  3.     
    |

106 comments // Obama To Ease Warantless Wiretapping, Wants To Include Gmail, Facebook, BlackBerry and Skype

  • Prijedor
  • shanklinmike
  • sam0031
  • cool0ne
  • sam0031
    • 0
      sam0031  

    • I think this is great! It will lead more and more people to use email encryption like TrulyMail, PGP, GPG, etc. Then I won't be the only one. Finally, people will see the reason to protect themselves.

    • 2 years ago
  • libertyforall
    • 0
      libertyforall  
    • Image
    • sam0031:

      You mean the PGP like services the Obama administration plans to require to back up all their records to the Feds can tap them without warrants?

      Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

      Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

      The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

      http://www.dailypaul.com/node/145376

      Obama is going to make us wish for the day when Bush was in office.

    • 2 years ago
  • sam0031
    • +1
      sam0031  
    • libertyforall:

      TrulyMail is from Chile = not subject to US Government's whims. GPG is open source, again hard to control. PGP is based in the US (Symantec) so they might force a back door in that one.

    • 2 years ago
  • Elevator
    • +2
      Elevator  

    • I absolutely guarantee you could take a number of bushes worst policies and present them to Obama supporters as his and they wouldn't have a problem with them at all.

    • 2 years ago
  • libertyforall
    • -1
      libertyforall  

    • Funny to see all the hurt and outrage about privacy issues when Bush was in office, but now the left is suddenly silent when Obama is proving to be worse on personal liberties.

    • 2 years ago
  • PigFarmington
  • fillmore
  • hunzedog
    • +1
      hunzedog  

    • the problem with our country is the gubment.....there i said it.
      i hope they get a good idea about how much the average american hates them.
      when they start spying on us.....us and them

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
  • stehpanie
  • utubemafia
  • discusted
  • UtopianSky
    • -5
      UtopianSky  

    • We need to have the technology in place so the good guys can catch the bad guys.

      Yes, sometimes the criminal justice system oversteps their boundaries- but that is a separate issue.

      Crooked cops need to be arrested just like every other kind of criminal- but ALL kinds of criminals need to have evidence accumulated against them before they are arrested.

      This paranoia that "all cops are bad" is bizarre.
      If it was not for the GOOD cops, we would be dominated by criminals, like in Mexico and Russia.

      And other than the title and the paranoia, none of this is about WARANTLESS wiretapping.

    • 2 years ago
  • riverratt50
    • +1
      riverratt50  
    • UtopianSky:

      You are by far and about the MOST brainwashed ignorant person that I have ever read in comments. No matter what the subject your spaced out tree huggin fish kissin bs get's in the way of your brain function. Why don't you just go to work for the welfare system and become another part of the problem!!.... Obama lied during his campaign about doing away with this program, but now it's needed for the good guys to catch the bad guys.. What if some of the "Bad guys" aren't bad guys at all.. Oh wait, the cops and gov always get it right don't they there spacey???? And all cops is bad is bazaar,, go to YouTube and watch "America's toughest street gang" and then tell some of them people that your cops are not all bad people... Man your out there.. And bullshix none of it is about warrantless. Check out the law there einstine and you will see what the Warrantless part is exactly what its about. It means they have the right to tap ANY line without warrant!! Read the law before inserting foot in a&&!!

    • 2 years ago
  • utubemafia
    • +1
      utubemafia  

    • @Skanklin puppets,

      Want to know why Ron Paul is against abortion? According to scripture, when Adam and Eve were banished from Eden all men were cursed with death and eternal damnation on earth. Man can only be saved by accepting the "son" of god as their savior having committed the ultimate sacrifice by paying for mans sins with his life.

      Those that never knew of him are damned according to any version of the bible.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • riverratt50
  • Saladin
    • +6
      Saladin  

    • The real dangerous thing about security abuses like this is that they start to become legal precedent.

      Soon, shit like this will just be normal and both the Supreme Court and the American public will become apathetic to notions of abuse and justice.

      The other month, we put that little kid away for life with testimony based on torture. Most of us didn't even care.

      If you think there's a far cry from the jump to that to doing it to citizens, you're very much wrong.

      Speak up now, because it will be too late in the future. Since Obama, who was vocally opposed to shit like this in his campaign, has started down this path, it might already be quite far along.

      And having lost our economy, our pride, most of our intellect, a portion of our infrastructure and our humanity, our freedom and our military dominance are all we really have left.

      And since military dominance is on the decline, losing our basic freedoms means that we literally would have nothing good to say about ourselves anymore.

      This is about more than just some stupid NSA clerk listening in on your phone-sex, this is about a statement of American tradition and limited government powers. Our freedoms are meaningless if they can be violated at any time.

    • 2 years ago
  • riverratt50
  • Dagum
  • utubemafia
    • +1
      utubemafia  
    • Image

    • *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency#Government_work

      In 1871, Congress appropriated $50,000 to the new Department of Justice (DOJ) to form a suborganization devoted to "the detection and prosecution of those guilty of violating federal law." The amount was insufficient for the DOJ to fashion an integral investigating unit, so the DOJ contracted out the services to the Pinkerton National Detective Agency.[6]

      However, since passage of the Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893, federal law has stated that an "individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia."[7]

    • 2 years ago
  • utubemafia
  • utubemafia
  • mindcruzer
  • Saladin
    • +2
      Saladin  
    • mindcruzer:

      Liberals didn't ask for the Federal Government to expand its security measures, we've been against them all along.

      Don't strawman people because the issue is frustrating. You probably couldn't find a single liberal on this entire site who would agree with this.

      Plus the "expanding Federal Power" talking point is a false dichotomy. The notion that the Federal Government should be involved in say healthcare or financial regulation does not somehow allow or translate into expansions of power everywhere.

      Furthermore, most of these security devices are actually illegal under current Federal Law. So not only is it done without a mandate from the people, it's done in violation of the basic laws the Feds have set up.

    • 2 years ago
  • Debra_
    • -2
      Debra_  
    • ImConcerned:

      I am glad to see you are at least capable of some intelligent thought. Unlike all the paranoid posters on here, who freak out when the government only wants to protect them.

    • 2 years ago
  • ImConcerned
  • Debra_
  • ImConcerned
  • Debra_
  • Eaglemama
    • +2
      Eaglemama  

    • I am not sure who the enemy is anymore. I just feel so unfree and Im sad my kids will be unfree too. This could have been such a great country but its lost its heart and soul in the corporate bottom line.

    • 2 years ago
  • passjay
    • 0
      passjay  

    • Cats like PassJay that might have been doctors, lawyers or physicians. Why that brother around the corner might have been the person with the cure for caner. We are all victims of the American social order

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
    • +1
      Nephwrack  

    • waitaminute, is Obama personally signing off on this stuff or is it ppl in the respective agencies? cause that's a big difference.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
    • +2
      bailey78  

    • That grip gets a little tighter every day. You have to look at what is hiden in that law that will come into play at a later date.

    • 2 years ago
  • Darevalo
  • CarlosIsDown
  • CarlosIsDown
    • 0
      CarlosIsDown  

    • I dunno, he's doing this to make Cheney happy or something. He's the last person he wants to be pleasing. Just to seem "tough on terror". Such an empty phrase.

      So under the Bush years, us liberals liked to rag on bush about this. Now Obama is doing it. I think that this is one of the many issues that'll keep many of those on the left home this November.

      So, do I think that there should be warrant-less wiretapping? No. But I also don't think that I'll be targeted in an attack, and I don't think I'll be in an airplane anytime soon. Will I be more thankful for this surveillance if I feel that I am. I'm not sure.

      Hows that quote go? Those that are willing to give up few liberties in order for temporary saftey, something something. . .

      You've got to admit, it's a tough decision when everyone will blame YOU for a terrorist attack. Even if you're not president anymore (Clinton).

    • 2 years ago
  • toyotabedzrock
    • -5
      toyotabedzrock  

    • SHANKLINMIKE IS A GOP SHILL, STOP COMMENTING ON HIS POSTS!!!

      His goal is to further sully the governments reputation so they can take control and then this stuff will look harmless in comparison.

      BUSH started this, but he kept it secret. He strong armed the NewYorkTimes to not publish anything about it before 2004!

    • 2 years ago
  • LibertyMinded
  • Skydog90
  • Paratus
    • +2
      Paratus  
    • toyotabedzrock:

      Hate to tell you guy but this was going on before Bush. Even if he did start it Obama is doing more, much like the national debt. Echelon happened under Clinton I believe and listening on microwave tx has been happening since before Clinton. Don't blame this on Bush.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarlosIsDown
  • Debra_
  • RaceBannon
  • Debra_
  • Debra_
  • grandavi
  • Debra_
  • pukemnukem
    • +1
      pukemnukem  

    • Can someone please tell me one single item that Obama promised during his election campaign that he has seen through a accomplished. Bush sucked...but at least he was honest about it. No one was ever really shocked by what he did. I can't think of anything except maybe the Healthcare bill that was written by industry leaders and completely neutered to the point it doesn't achieve any meaningful reform. Are we ever going to close Gitmo? He hasn't done shit to reform the immigration issue and I am utterly sicked to see his cabinet demand that the judge stay her ruling against DADT. How the holy hell is this man even considered to be a liberal? or really anything utter than a complete failure up to this point?

      Maybe its just me. This is why I never vote for either party.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Kitten_Moon
    • 0
      Kitten_Moon  
    • pukemnukem:

      He's kept 122 out of the 506 promises he made. Out of the 506, 22 have been broken, 41 have been compromised, 82 have been stalled, 236 are still in the works, and 3 have not been rated yet.

      Also, not voting doesn't help.

    • 2 years ago
  • sam0031
    • 0
      sam0031  
    • Nephwrack:

      Since when is the right to free speech tied to voting? We ALWAYS have the right to free speech (please do not start down the slippery slope of restricting our speech).

      That said, I'm all for voting... at least for the informed.

    • 2 years ago
  • ejasun
    • +3
      ejasun  
    • Image

    • Domestic Eavesdropping Program SUCKS

      Former FISC judge criticizes warrantless wiretapping program.

      Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. Like a grand jury, FISC is not an adversarial court: the federal government is the only party to its proceedings.

      United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge.

      Closed-door hearing held by the US House Intelligence Committee Divisions between members of the administration as to whether the president's warrantless wiretapping program was legal.

      The House Intelligence Committee and its Senate counterpart are reviewing the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and its relation to the domestic eavesdropping program.

      The program has allowed the executive to order wiretaps without seeking court approval.

      http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/former-fisc-judge-criticizes.php

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Cou...

    • 2 years ago
  • ayipis
  • shanklinmike
    • +2
      shanklinmike [removed]  
    • ayipis:

      I'm seriously trying to give you a fair shake. Just wondering, why do you make so many neocon statements? You do realize that both parties are guilty of these crimes, correct? I'm not really talking about this statement per se, but about past statements I've seen you make. You would have a lot more credibility if you would expound on issues and principles versus left right party politics. Peace

    • 2 years ago
  • dudefromtherock
  • CarlosIsDown
  • mindcruzer
  • bailey78
  • Dazedandconfused
  • maasanova
  • ed2point0
    • +1
      ed2point0  

    • This should prove that Obama is perpetuating Bush's policies regarding individual liberty and especially when it comes to the internet. Let's not forget that Obama voted for telecom immunity as senator, voted for the extension of the Patriot Act as senator, signed the extension of the Patriot Act as president, and grew the size of the intellligence industrial complex. Too bad people can't see beyond the false left-right paradigm to understand that.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • shanklinmike
  • utubemafia
    • 0
      utubemafia  
    • ed2point0:

      @Skanklin puppets,

      Want to know why Ron Paul is against abortion? According to scripture, when Adam and Eve were banished from Eden all men were cursed with death and eternal damnation on earth. Man can only be saved by accepting the "son" of god as their savior having committed the ultimate sacrifice by paying for mans sins with his life.

      Those that never knew of him are damned according to any version of the bible.

    • 2 years ago
  • Debra_
    • -19
      Debra_  

    • We need to protect the American people from the dangers of post modern society. Mr. Obama is forward thinking in recognizing the dangers, and expanding government tools to remedy the situation.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • Debra_
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike [removed]  
    • Debra_:

      Ironic enough, war is collectivism... we wouldn't even have large scale war in anarcho-capitalism.

      In a laissez-faire, free market, free society, there would be negative consequences placed without sovereign immunity on those who attack others, and they would directly have to burden the cost.

      Imagine if Bush, Obama, Wall Street, big oil.....had to pay for their own wars and couldn't charge it to the taxpayers.... there would be no wars!

      Individualism and civil liberties are the common good, they are utilitarian, and they would protect us better than a centralized coercive monopoly that is based around coercion and power structure, versus answering to consumers and directly to the people on a day to day basis unlike the system today which is based around voting once every few years and knowing you're getting screwed. Freedom is the answer, we wouldn't of even had terrorists pissed at us in the first place. All this blowback is a result of statism. Freedom is the answer.

    • 2 years ago
  • Debra_
    • -14
      Debra_  
    • shanklinmike:

      War is product of free markets and capitalism. Resources can't be adequately distributed through a price system, so we go to war to get more. Only the government can fairly distribute resources as they not personally invested in the outcome of the distribution, while everyone may have less, together they will have more. And people will be satisfied enough not to go to war.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • +1
      shanklinmike [removed]  
    • Debra_:

      "Resource can't be adequately disturbed through a price system"
      ~So you believe we live in a free market system today? The price system does not go to war, that is just silly. Governments go to war, and government is just one more big government program. Why do corporations have to get in bed with government in the first place if they can supposedly go to war? Who goes to war? Governments, with influences from bought and paid lobbyists and politicians. Free markets don't go to war with anyone, governments have the guns and go to war in the name of corporatism.

      Corporatism is not free market capitalism, they are essentially dichotomies. Governments go to war, not price systems.

    • 2 years ago
  • pissedoffinarkansas
  • shanklinmike
  • dudefromtherock
    • +3
      dudefromtherock  
    • Debra_:

      You are an utter fool to believe such drivel and to think that your generation marched and died on university campuses to maintain peace and freedom. Wake up and think for yourself.

    • 2 years ago
  • Debra_
    • -10
      Debra_  
    • pissedoffinarkansas:

      Lets get back to reality. Our country was founded on white supremacy disguising itself as some made up concept known as "civil liberties." Civil liberties are nothing more than the most perverse and disgusting form of individualism.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • Debra_
  • shanklinmike
    • -1
      shanklinmike [removed]  
    • Debra_:

      How is not using threats of coercion on peaceful people slavery? Using corporate socialism through government (which is what all industrialized nations become) is not the answer. The government racked up debt, got us into a war I don't support, trapped me into its overbearing and often biased regulations, and uses fiat money through central banks to devalue my earnings and real wealth. It throws money into welfare blackhole programs and usurps individuals rights. The government backed up Bernie Madoff through the SEC, the DIO enslaves Native Americans to 85% unemployment rates, and it lies to us constantly. Governments are coercion, that is not civilized nor peaceful. For goodness sakes, they arrest you for the wrong piece of vegetation in your pocket!

      Statism is slavery, not peaceful interactions and free societies. You have it all backwards.

    • 2 years ago
  • Debra_
  • Skydog90
  • Debra_
  • Skydog90
  • madXmedic
    • +5
      madXmedic  
    • Debra_:

      Do you really believe that we as humans have half a chance of not abusing such power? One, and I shall repeat one attack on American soil since this whole "Level Orange Day" BS started. Have you been to the airports? Did you know that people can sneak ceramic knives onto a plane? So if they can do that, why haven't they hijacked another one. Because they don't want to! Think about the frequency of attack versus the system of "safety" that is being established. You will find discrepancies.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • ed2point0
    • 0
      ed2point0  
    • Debra_:

      Maybe someone needs to explain to you what General Smedley Butler said about war, "War is the Health of the State." Granted at that time Gen. Butler confused free markets and capitalism with corporatism, but his analysis rings true to this day. It's hard to figure out your ideology since you're all over the map but maybe you need to understand that war is nothing more than a form of corporate welfare to the defense contractors like Xe, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. I will paraphrase what Benjamin Franklin said: those who would sacrifice our liberties for security deserve neither.

    • 2 years ago
  • Debra_
    • -2
      Debra_  
    • Nephwrack:

      To both you and ed2point0 who post quotes without purpose:

      Freedom is an abstract concept that doesn't have a true definite meaning. Its only used as some sort of moral springboard to prop up asinine individualism

      Science can bring better security but far more importantly, PROGRESS. Individual liberties leads to irrationality,waste, and unpredictability. Someone has to direct society toward a common goal in order for humanity to realize its full potential. The best and brightest scientists are the ideal for directors of a society.

      That being said. Mr. Obama is correct in expanding the patriot act and this warrantless wiretapping program, its effective tool to protect the population from themselves as well as external threats.

    • 2 years ago
  • ed2point0
    • +2
      ed2point0  
    • Debra_:

      And again, it's hard to pinpoint your ideology because it's all over the map, but I don't care. You want to defend Obama's perpetuation of Bush's policies, be my guest. Just don't expect me to say that I agree with you, which I don't. Again, those who would sacrifice liberties for security deserve neither.

    • 2 years ago
  • Proud_Progressive
  • Debra_
  • ImConcerned
  • Debra_
  • Proud_Progressive
  • Debra_
12
1 - 100 of 105
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos