Obama Admin. To Expand Warrantless Internet Activity Searches

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Obama Admin. To Expand Warrantless Internet Activity Searches

Written By : William Teach

Through all the whining from the Left about warrantless wiretapping and such, at least that was done against foreigners. No so with the latest Obama administration proposal

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.

I’m sure they’re working towards getting the content included soon. If they were aiming at foreign terrorists, that would be one thing. They are not entitled to the protections of our Constitution unless we extend them. Anyone want to bet this is used against American citizens? If I was a conspiracy minded person, I might think this would be used against Americans who oppose Obama’s radical, far left, outside the mainstream agenda. But, a sitting US President would never do anything like that, would they? And never use a federal agency to go after political opponents, right?

The Barry Admin argues that this is just like getting basic phone records, which show the number and time of the call. When this was done by the Bush administration, they took that and looked for patterns to know foreign terrorists. If you are asking for actual email addresses, and potentially internet browsing records, you are going well beyond that basic data. You are now into specifics. Get a warrant.

Interestingly, the Washington Post is not in their “this is horrible!!!!!” mode, just simply passing on some information. It was on the front page of today’s paper, though. And some liberals are not amused by the proposal:

Mother Jones writes “You know, if I’d wanted Dick Cheney as president I would have just voted for him.”
Emptywheel at Firedoglake: “This is one of the most important pieces of civil liberties news in a long time” (and he doesn’t mean it in a good way)
At the Democratic Underground, the first two comments are: The administration hates us for our freedom. and The administration wants to fight us over here so they don’t have to fight us over there. nt (and most of the comments are not amused by the Obama admin’s proposal. Good for them!)

However, nothing from many of the normal players, such as the ACLU, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post. You know this would be huge and require non-stop articles if Bush did it from them. Now? Not so much.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

Mr. EMT

And after 2012 libtards will want that repealed.

StanW

Just add this to the list of laws and legislation that the Democrats will declare to be vile and unConstitutional… the INSTANT they are out of office and no longer able to utilize to their advantage.

Kingfisher

Since Obama won we should never question his policies shouldn't we, lefties? Or is it acceptable to question policies only when you disagree with them?
baoxian

Well for one, it has to be assumed that any unencrypted electronic transmission is being examined by algorithms in government servers. (Thank you Clinton and Echelon)

But this is how it works. Bush wiretaps communications with known foreign terrorists. Obama expands it to any electronic activity deemed “relevant” to any terrorism or intelligence operation. Next it will be Minority Report, only with bumbling government agents instead of infallible psychics deciding whom to arrest.

Guest

“Bush wiretaps communications with known foreign terrorists” If it were only that cut and dry, you wouldn't have heard the outcry from the American people.

TheDickNixon

Nixon remembers liberal Democrats being paranoid about the NSA listening to calls to known terrorists.

gfchicago

Who here really thinks he is going to do this through legislative means. 10 to 1 he does it with an executive order as has been his want lately.

StanW

“Stroke of the pen… law of the land. Pretty cool!”

Morning, GF. How's tricks?

gfchicago

Mornin Stan, everything going pretty good for now. Hope everything is well with you and Mrs. Stan.

LOL hows tricks. I haven't heard that expression in years. That was one of my late father's favorites.

StanW

Doing well, GF. Thanks for asking.

Not sure I am as old as your father, but I say that A LOT… and get mostly blank stares in return! ;)

gfchicago

My dad had just turned 70 in '06 when he passed away.

I suspect with my dad using that phrase that he picked it up while he was in the air force. My mom used to get so embarrassed with some of the expressions and jokes he used to tell. I just chalked it up to him being a G.I.
StanW

Well, I never served, (and THANKS to your dad for his service), so I'm not sure where I picked it up.

I use a lot of OLD SOUTH expression that most people don;t understand. I think of it as my own personal code! ;)
gfchicago

I'm sure that my dad would be totally embarrassed with your gratitude, so I'll say your welcome for him. Dad always said he was just doing his job.

I never really had the nerve to ask him about Vietnam until maybe 3 or 4 years before his death, because he just never talked about being there during the height of the TET Offensive. Once I finanaly screwed up my courage to ask him what he thought about it, he told me that he had signed up to do a job and he was honor bound to do it whether or not he agreed with the war (which by the way he didn't) or not.

Dad was an odd duck, he was fiscally conservative, on some issues such as abortion he was conservative, however the way I understood him he believed that we should help the elderly and the under privileged. I do know that he supported G.W. unconditionally with his war on terror.

Dad used to tell me that I was to the right of Attila the Hun and that I didn't get that from him.
StanW

Your dad sounds like a great man, and it woudl have been my honor to meet him, shake his hand, and thank him for his service.
gfchicago

Thanks Stan, I really appreciate that. With August 5th looming which will be the 4th anniversary of his death, I find myself thinking about him constantly. I miss him terribly.

Guest

“Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.”
“Increased the time allowed for warrantless surveillance to continue from 48 hours to 7 days. (This includes pen registers and trap & trace surveillance.)”
I don't agree with a lot of the aspects of the FISA Act, but until Obama drifts from the confines of the law as the Bush Administration did in persuing information, he is legitimate in his actions. Is there evidence that he has violated the FISA Act as the Bush administration did? I haven't heard of any, but I would like to know if you have any examples.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Obama didn't need any examples of racism to complain about the Arizona law, now, did he?

Why am I not surprised an ObamaZombie is A-OK with this proposal? You just know that Guest would pitch a fit if Bush had proposed this.

Guest

So based on your reply William; you are agreeing that the Obama administration has done nothing in violation of the law and has acted within its authority established by the Bush administration and modified under the Obama administration. Did I understand your replay correctly?

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Funny stuff, Guest! You libs freaked out over the Bush programs, which did not affect American citizens without a warrant, yet, you are OK with Obama doing this, which will involve American citizens. Not too much of a hypocrite, are you?

Guest

“Is there evidence that he has violated the FISA Act as the Bush administration did?” The same question I posted earlier.

It is funny you should use the word “hypocrite” in your reply.
Drake

The answer to your question is, “No, Bush did not violate the FISA Act.”

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

And some liberals are not amused by the proposal:

I suppose this won't make me the most popular kid on the block, but on the other side of this issue, the courts have long applied the principle of 'expectation of privacy' to the private, personal use of company connectivity resources. I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone here who uses a company-provided computer and company-provided internet connection to do anything personal on the internet has been shown, and has signed off on, a company policy which informs them that: a)the use of company resources for private purposes beyond occasional and incidental use is not permitted, and b)that they have no expectation of privacy if they do chose to use the internet/email for private purposes. That's fairly standard-issue corporate policy these days.

Mind you, I'm arguing the rightness or wrongness of that policy, but rather just noting that it's there and has been there for a good long while.

What I have the most misgivings about is not the privacy issue, but rather the government co-opting of company resources to perform basic policing on a presumptive basis. Companies are gathering and storing information on a distant and vague presumption of future guilt – not because any particular individual has done something wrong. They're not just checking out someone who has done something to warrant being checked out – they're monitoring all communications from all people on the presumption that at some point in the future, one or more of those people will do something improper. For me, that flies in the face of the principle of presumed innocence, which is a cornerstone of our philosophy of jurisprudence.

Kingfisher

I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone here who uses a company-provided computer and company-provided internet connection to do anything personal on the internet has been shown, and has signed off on, a company policy which informs them that:

Martin,

That is common in almost every company and government agency but you would be surprised at the number of employees who still expect privacy, despite the constant reminder otherwise.

I stated before that the only way to expect privacy on the Internet is to use encryption. Sending email on the Internet is like mailing a postcard…anybody can read what you write. The same goes for public web sites, your wireless “http://…” traffic is public knowledge and can be view by anybody. In fact, many students and hackers frequent coffee shops and other public places with the hope of finding “wireless gold.”

Companies are gathering and storing information on a distant and vague presumption of future guilt – not because any particular individual has done something wrong.

You're somewhat correct but the bigger issue is to protect the company from any legal liabilities. If an employee visits an inappropriate site from his company, the source IP is traced back to the company and the CEO can be in serious hot water if the employee in question is not found.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

…but you would be surprised at the number of employees who still expect privacy…

Well I personally wouldn't be surprised since I've been in HR for 20 years and have conducted many investigations into employee improprieties involving emails and internet use over that span of time. I've seen how ignorant people are collectively about their actions. But I agree that many people would be surprised to learn the realities.

You're somewhat correct but the bigger issue is to protect the company from any legal liabilities.

Yep. Agreed that the policies are all about liability exposure for the company. But I think the key point with respect to the story William posted is that now that the government, through it's law enforcement agencies, is potentially involved, the principle of presumed innocence comes into play for me. When it was just an internal matter between employee and employer, that principle of presumed innocence had no particular meaning, since individuals don't have any particular protection regarding presumed innocence within the employment relationship. If you were caught doing something improper, you could be disciplined, fired, and possibly sued if you'd caused the company harm. But now that there's the potential for a person to lose their freedom, civil liberties and rights by being found guilty of a felony, the principle of presumed innocence becomes a concern. At least for me.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

I understand what you are saying, Martin, but, there is a difference: you are referring to people who work for private companies, with no expectation of privacy (I can open my employees lockers and search the contents any time I want, for instance, and there is not one thing they can do about it), versus Constitutionally guaranteed protection from government malfeasance.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Which is kinda the point I was making, William. Now that the government and LEA's are involved (by demanding once-private and 4th Amendment protected records), the principle of presumed innocence, and all of the legal protections normally afforded individuals outside the employment relationship have suddenly been called into question.

Since the meat of the story was about how this administration wants to make it easier for LEA's to compel employers to turn over logs and records, my concern is not about the privacy issue, which as we've both pointed out, employees never had to begin with. My concerns have to do with your presumed innocence and protection from unlawful search/seizure being summarily trampled.

UFKA_Smithwick

Maybe all the screams of “Hitler” and “fascism” against Bush were really just misguided jealousy. They were pissed because they thought he was trying to steal their bit.

StanW

No, it is even simpler than that, Smith.

When a Conservative does something, it is fascism or tyrrany or “shredding the Constitution”.
When a Liberal does the exact same thing (OR WORSE) it is perfectly legal and a necessary thing.

Liberal Double Standards? Why, YES IT IS!
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

It's called projection!

Ross Wolf

Last week the FBI asked for the power to obtain without warrants, Citizens’ “electronic communication transactional records” including addresses that persons sent email. The FBI’s request cannot be considered separately; because if anyone of numerous bills pending in Congress pass, the FBI would have even more power, to detain Americans without probable cause, on mere suspicion, based only on electronic communications the FBI obtained without warrants.

For example, Sen. McCain on March 4, 2010 introduced The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” McCain’s bill would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. Under S.3081 government may use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity against the United States or civilians to detain Americans.” U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be extremely vulnerable to detention and or prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with by email domestically and overseas. Government under S.3081 would need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or Civilians or (has) purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners or U.S. civilians.

More recently Obama gave a speech in May 2010 that asked Congress to pass legislation to give the President, power to detain any person in the U.S. that government deems a “combatant” or likely to engage in a violent act in the future. President Obama wants the power to incarcerate U.S. Citizens not on evidence, but for what they might do. Obama wants the power to override the U.S. Constitution. If Obama’s proposed legislation is passed, the President will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence, based on conjecture someone might do something violent in the future.

It is problematic, if the FBI is allowed warrant-less access to Citizens’ “electronic communication transactional records” including persons’ addresses that Citizens sent email and McCain or Obama’s legislation, or similar legislation is passed, Citizens’ ’”electronic communication transactional records” will be used by the FBI and other government agencies to pick up and indefinitely detain Americans without probable cause.

See: Obama Sound-Video as for the power to detain people without probable cause at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html

See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 at:
assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN