Remember how people made fun of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for banning Blackberries because RIM refused to allow them to control and monitor their users’ online activities? Well, the Obama administration is going to submit a bill that would require RIM and every other company providing communications software to include loopholes that enable the US to tap into them as well.
A legal mandate that requires peer-to-peer communications to be subject to monitoring will essentially kill it off. Likewise, software that uses public key encryption in the client would also have to be fundamentally changed in order to comply.
And, of course, people with a clue will always be able to encrypt their communications so that they can’t be easily monitored, through the use of open source software that can be made illegal but can’t be eradicated.
The New York Times article linked above is very good, and covers most of the obvious problems with this legislation. You should also read Glenn Greenwald’s post on the subject.
What really irritates me about this is that the Obama administration is supposed to be more technically savvy and pragmatic than its predecessors. I’m sure there are plenty of smart people in the administration who know everything there is to know on this topic. So why push for this legislation? I have a theory, but I’m not even going to bother to write it up, because it’s not important. This legislation is an obviously bad idea and wandering around in the forest of systems theory doesn’t change that. As an activist, my role in the system is to attack the government for taking action that I disagree with. I’ll leave the role of government apologist for other people.
Update: Be sure to read Declan McCullagh’s take on the proposed legislation.
Turns out that the NSA is abusing even the excessive powers it was granted in last year’s FISA bill, which Barack Obama voted for. Time for real intelligence reform.
Threat Level reports on the Obama administration’s decision to fall in line with a Bush administration request to keep evidence classified in a wiretapping case involving two American lawyers. Obama has taken a strong stand against torture, but his positions on surveillance have been less encouraging.
It would be ideal if the Obama administration would clearly outline its philosophy on the government’s right to spy on Americans. The actual mechanisms can stay secret, but we should know how much power the executive branch is claiming to possess.
Update: David Kris, an outspoken opponent of warrentless wiretapping, has been nominated to run the Justice Department’s national security division.
Time magazine reports on Sarah Palin’s tenure as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska:
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.
Amanda Simon is blogging the debate over the amendments to the FISA bill for the ACLU. This is a tough one to take, and honestly I don’t expect the next President to make things any better regardless of who it is. Here’s Gore Vidal in September 2000:
You have two candidates. Gore is by far the better trained and more intelligent and is going to win. It’s as simple as that. But I worry because he, too, is funded by corporate America. Luckily he’s intelligent and will hopefully turn out pretty well. But what I’m concerned about is how the corruption of the system has become totally accepted. This can be changed by an act of Congress, but no one will be propose it.
Will it happen? No burglar who ever reached the second floor ever kicked the ladder away.
That last sentence is one that has come to mind frequently in the years since. Vidal’s incorrect prediction that Al Gore would win stings a bit, too.
Here’s Glenn Greenwald on today’s events:
Rather, the insultingly false claims about this bill — it brings the FISA court back into eavesdropping! it actually improves civil liberties! Obama will now go after the telecoms criminally! Government spying and lawbreaking isn’t really that important anyway! — are being disseminated by the Democratic Congressional leadership and, most of all, by those desperate to glorify Barack Obama and justify anything and everything he does. Many of these are the same people who spent the last five years screaming that Bush was shredding the Constitution, that spying on Americans was profoundly dangerous, that the political establishment did nothing about Bush’s lawbreaking.
It’s been quite disturbing to watch them turn on a dime — completely reverse everything they claimed to believe — the minute Obama issued his statement saying that he would support this bill. They actually have the audacity to say that this bill — a bill which Bush, Cheney and the entire GOP eagerly support, while virtually every civil libertarian vehemently opposes — will increase the civil liberties that Americans enjoy, as though Dick Cheney, Mike McConnell and “Kit” Bond decided that it was urgently important to pass a new bill to restrict presidential spying and enhance our civil liberties. How completely do you have to relinquish your critical faculties at Barack Obama’s altar in order to get yourself to think that way?
How did Barack Obama go from saying this on January 28:
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
To saying this on June 20:
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.
Talking Points Memo has a collection of Barack Obama’s statements on the subject. Glenn Greenwald has also been all over this issue.
Update: Barack Obama responded directly to his critics on his blog today. I continue to disagree with his rationale for supporting the compromise but I’m somewhat pleased that he’s engaging with his critics. Be sure to read Glenn Greenwald’s analysis of Obama’s statement. I agree with every red flag he raises.
If you’ve been looking for an area of policy where there Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differ substantially, you should read today’s op-ed by Jeffrey Rosen on civil liberties.
Most Americans don’t really care about civil liberties, at least enough to pay attention to them or to vote based on that issue. Many Americans are, in fact, completely OK with abuses of civil liberties as long as those abuses come with a promise that they’re necessary to keep us safe. Civil liberties are an area where the President has the most discretion. Even if Congress authorizes the executive branch to abuse civil liberties, the President can choose not to act on that authority. (Or, in the case of the Bush administration, can claim authority not actually granted to the executive branch by Congress or the Constitution.) For those reasons, as a civil libertarian, this is a key issue for me as a voter.
© rc3.org. Powered by WordPress using the DePo Skinny Theme.