White House Pushes For Warrantless Access To ISP Records And expansion of heavily abused 'security letter' system While the two administrations certainly have their differences, the Obama administration is following the Bush administration's lead on a number of fronts -- specifically in terms of surveillance and privacy in the digital age. According to the Washington Post, the Obama camp is working to make it easier for the FBI to compel your ISP to turn over your online activity records without a court order "if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation:" quote: 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. Of course the problem has traditionally been that the FBI (and major carriers) Update: Amusingly, the Of course the problem has traditionally been that the FBI (and major carriers) haven't been particularly good at following the law , and the FBI has consistently faked terrorism emergencies to get access to whatever data they're looking for. As the Post notes, the government portrays these desired changes as technical clarification to resolve legal ambiguity, while privacy watchdogs and others note it's simply an expansion of government power and extended use of "national security letters," which have been abused extensively by both government and companies like AT&T.: Amusingly, the Los Angeles Times today is running a related piece discussing how the FBI is being investigated for agents cheating on a test designed to help them avoid the kind of privacy and wiretap abuse the agency has been repeatedly called out for in recent years.







News Jump Broad Coalition Urges Court Not To Block Cali Net Neutrality Law; GOP To Trump: Please Don't Nationalize 5G; + more news SpaceX Providing Internet To Towns Hit by Wildfires; Verizon Launches New 5G Home Hardware In Twin Cities; + more news Stark New Reality In The Telco Business: Dumb Pipes No Longer Cut It; AT&T Unveils Mix and Match Plans; + more news AT&T Extends Overage Charge Waiver; Verizon And T-Mobile Each Insist Their 5G Strategy Is The Right One; + more news War Of Words Heats Up: T-Mobile Fires Back At Verizon, AT&T; Amazon Intros Gaming Service To Take On Stadia; + more news Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 119 comments



Noah Vail

Oh God please no.

Premium Member

join:2004-12-10

SouthAmerica 6 recommendations Noah Vail Premium Member According to Candidate Barack Obama:



Senator Obama, once had this to say on the matter. said by Senator Obama, Senate Floor, 12/15/05 :



Once a business or a person receives notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it, and they are even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - this Conference Report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order.



If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you have done so. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of law, and I don't see why it is justified here.



And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document - through library books they've read and phone calls they've made - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.



This is just plain wrong. Once a business or a person receives notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it, and they are even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - this Conference Report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order.If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you have done so. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of law, and I don't see why it is justified here.And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document - through library books they've read and phone calls they've made - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.This is just plain wrong.



Senator Obama added these statements a couple of years later. said by Senator Obama at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; on August 1, 2007 :



This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.



This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens.No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America



And then a year later, Senator Obama answered the following questions put to all the leading Presidential Candidates. said by the Boston Globe questionnaire to Senator Obama :



Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?



A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes....

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.



Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?



A: ...While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.



I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with {the Bush} administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?A:Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?A:



NV It looks like the Obama Administration will continue the Bush era practice of using National Security Letters, and will use them to acquire that ISP data.Senator Obama, once had this to say on the matter.Senator Obama added these statements a couple of years later.And then a year later, Senator Obama answered the following questions put to all the leading Presidential Candidates.I admit to having some trouble reconciling Candidate Obama's words with President Obama's actions.NV

Steve B

Premium Member

join:2004-08-02

Auburn, WA 2 recommendations Steve B Premium Member Well well well..... I don't like this at all. However, I'm wondering where are all the people that bashed Bush over warrant-less wiretapping. Will they be at the same loud point bashing Obama over this?