Warrantless Wiretapping
Stories about the NSA are inherently interesting to security people, myself included. After all, according to this chart, I am a mere one degree seperated from the NSA VoiP conspiracy.
So, I feel compelled to comment on the breathless revelations that the White House has secretly authorized illegal wiretaps as part of its anti-terrorism efforts.
For background, here is the original New York Times article, and here is a brief Pigdog article detailing the relevant Electronic Surveillance statute.
I'm no lawyer, but FISA is written so plainly that it appears that the administration violated these laws. Senator Arlen Specter, since learning of the program, is now planning hearings for January to find out for sure.
The thing that bothers me is why they would even bother breaking the law. It's confusing because it's so easy to do this kind of thing within FISA and the PATRIOT Act. So, it makes me think that there's more to the story -- which, by the by, wouldn't surprise me. After all, not only did New York times admit that it sat on this story for a year (they knew about this before the 2004 election), but that "some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." Hmm.
So, I feel compelled to comment on the breathless revelations that the White House has secretly authorized illegal wiretaps as part of its anti-terrorism efforts.
For background, here is the original New York Times article, and here is a brief Pigdog article detailing the relevant Electronic Surveillance statute.
I'm no lawyer, but FISA is written so plainly that it appears that the administration violated these laws. Senator Arlen Specter, since learning of the program, is now planning hearings for January to find out for sure.
The thing that bothers me is why they would even bother breaking the law. It's confusing because it's so easy to do this kind of thing within FISA and the PATRIOT Act. So, it makes me think that there's more to the story -- which, by the by, wouldn't surprise me. After all, not only did New York times admit that it sat on this story for a year (they knew about this before the 2004 election), but that "some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." Hmm.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home