NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the revelation of a secret Executive Order permitting the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without court-approved warrants, as reported by The New York Times. Participants explore the implications of this surveillance on privacy rights, the legality of such actions, and the historical context of government monitoring practices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the NSA's domestic surveillance practices have been known for some time, citing prior articles and discussions on the topic.
  • Others contend that the specific details of the Executive Order and its implications were not widely recognized until the New York Times article was published.
  • Concerns are raised about the legality and constitutional implications of the NSA's actions, with some participants questioning whether these practices overstep legal boundaries.
  • Several participants express indifference towards government surveillance, suggesting that only those with something to hide should be concerned about privacy violations.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of privacy, with some participants comparing phone conversations to face-to-face interactions in public spaces, arguing that privacy is largely an illusion.
  • Some participants emphasize the potential for abuse of surveillance powers, noting that the identity of those conducting investigations could lead to wrongful labeling of individuals as terrorist suspects.
  • References are made to historical surveillance programs like Echelon, with differing opinions on whether they targeted U.S. citizens.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of views, with some agreeing that the surveillance practices are not new, while others argue that the specific Executive Order represents a significant shift. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications for privacy rights and the legality of the NSA's actions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference prior knowledge of government surveillance capabilities, while others highlight the lack of public awareness regarding the specific Executive Order. The conversation reflects varying levels of concern about privacy and the potential for government overreach.

rachmaninoff
[SOLVED] NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/p...en=22cb502ee0dee292&ei=5094&partner=homepage"
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
continued (5 page article)

Oh my god.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
People really are retarted...

When the Patriot Act was passed, every raving Liberal nutcase was screaming that it gave the Federal Government way too much power in it's ability to spy on people, to tap their phone and so on. Most people said they were nuts, and supported the Patriot Act. Now look what happened, those nutjobs were dead on. It just took everyone else about 4 years to get it.
 
rachmaninoff said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/p...en=22cb502ee0dee292&ei=5094&partner=homepage"

Oh my god.
Actually, this has been pretty much known for quite awhile, lots of articles about it in the last couple of years. The government's ability to demand access to ISP's records, etc... phone taps, this isn't new.

I attended a seminar (for about 30 of us) my company (a major telecom) held for us a couple of years ago with a person who was the former technology advisor to Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, The Executive Office of the President of the United States, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This stuff isn't secret. He was a cool guy, great to talk to. Quite an eye opener.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo said:
Actually, this has been pretty much known for quite awhile, lots of articles about it in the last couple of years. The government's ability to demand access to ISP's records, etc... phone taps, this isn't new.

No this hasn't been known about at all - you didn't look at the article did you?

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
 
rachmaninoff said:
No this hasn't been known about at all - you didn't look at the article did you?
Yes, I did, The NSA, that's been known for awhile.
 
Oh - I'd never heard of it. Do you have any links?
 
Who cares? How does this affect you in ANY WAY whatsoever? The government could have a camera in front of my face all day for all I care.

This has been done in the past, people have known about it. Why would anyone care? If you aren't planning on causing some terror (!), then the government will take no interest in you anyway. Before you say that this is taking away your rights, just think for a second. What rights is it taking away? Privacy? pfft, just because some person can listen to your phone call doesn't mean it's the end of your privacy, which is overrated anyway.
 
Last edited:
moose said:
Who cares? How does this affect you in ANY WAY whatsoever? The government could have a camera in front of my face all day for all I care.

This has been done in the past, people have known about it. Why would anyone care? If you aren't planning on causing some terror (!), then the government will take no interest in you anyway. Before you say that this is taking away your rights, just think for a second. What rights is it taking away? Privacy? pfft, just because some person can listen to your phone call doesn't mean it's the end of your privacy, which is overrated anyway.
The only people aside from terrorists that would have to worry would be big time criminals and even then I don't think the information gathered by the NSA would be usable legally.
 
I was thinking of posting last night, but didn't - glad (for once) others posted their opinions before me.

I agree that this is old news - have you guys just never heard of the NSA? Echelon? The encryption debate? Email routing?

And I also agree that this isn't a big deal unless you are a criminal. Guys, privacy? It only exists in your bedroom - and then only if you are alone and have the drapes closed.

Consider this: why should your right to privacy in a phone conversation be any different from your right to privacy in a face-to-face conversation in a crowded restaurant (ie, nonexistent)?
 
  • #10
Echelon didn't spy on US citizens in the US.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Consider this: why should your right to privacy in a phone conversation be any different from your right to privacy in a face-to-face conversation in a crowded restaurant (ie, nonexistent)?

What I think is the right to know that you are being monitored. When you call those support centers, they sometimes tell you that your call may be monitored. That is correct practice. In a crowded restaurant, sure I know that the guy sitting beside could potentially listen in. But on the phone, I wouldn't expect the same. There are times you don't want people knowing about parts of your life.

The whole issue about privacy isn't just about privacy. Atleast not in my opinion. It's about how it can be abused. If you know the guy who's doing these 'investigations', it's mighty easy to get someone marked a terrorist suspect isn't it. Although it may sound okay that this info is going to the 'government', but government is still people.
 
  • #12
rachmaninoff said:
Echelon didn't spy on US citizens in the US.


YEAH RIGHT hahahahha :smile:

Well anyway. The only thing NSA is incapable of cracking are those big bit keys. So take out your EE reference handbook and start making PGP video phones over TCP/IP if you are so worried about your privacy.
 
  • #13
Evo said:
Actually, this has been pretty much known for quite awhile, lots of articles about it in the last couple of years. The government's ability to demand access to ISP's records, etc... phone taps, this isn't new.
I attended a seminar (for about 30 of us) my company (a major telecom) held for us a couple of years ago with a person who was the former technology advisor to Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, The Executive Office of the President of the United States, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This stuff isn't secret. He was a cool guy, great to talk to. Quite an eye opener.

yup... In Italy most phones are tapped, people are just used to it now..
 
  • #14
Evo, yup I agree, for the most part, I would say the majority of people who learn from sources other than the mainstream media know this, however, those who stay current - mainly through the media... well they might be a bit ... clueless. Those are the same peeps who after 4 or 5 yrs. are only now starting to realize the Prez, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, ect - lied about Iraq's WMDs and guess what, they learned this fact from the media - only after the media sarted putting it out.
I believe the tapping of individual and corporate phone lines has and will prove to be susceptible to abuse by those with dubious ethics and greed for values. I think the proof of the pudding will come when and if we hear or see indictments, suits and or media investigations into 'alledged' vioplations that give some unknown group or individual assess that let's them profit in stocks,bonds or trading info - that allows for the type of indescrections like the 'Plume' flap, that let's some person(s) in positions of authority extort some public official(s) into acting against their publicly stated position and/or conscience.
 
  • #15
Consider this: why should your right to privacy in a phone conversation be any different from your right to privacy in a face-to-face conversation in a crowded restaurant (ie, nonexistent)?
Because a phone conversation in the privacy of one's home is not in a public forum, unless one now considers the telecom systems to be public forums.

What I think is the right to know that you are being monitored. When you call those support centers, they sometimes tell you that your call may be monitored. That is correct practice.
That would defeat the purpose of 'spying'. The idea is that someone is violating the law, or perhaps planning to do so, and the government reserves the right to intervene.

As far as call centers go, that is a commerical relationship or transaction. The call is monitored for quality, and perhaps the fact that the company wants their employees to be efficient - more calls/unit time = more calls/unit cost.

Until the president signed the order, the NSA was not supposed to spy on US citizens, but was supposed to be restricted to embassies and foreign missions (and perhaps foreigners).

The problem however is when the government spies on the citizens for purely political reasons and not for national security. The Bush administration apparently spies on people who do not agree with policy, which has nothing to do with national security.
 
  • #16
Because, moose&russ watters, saying in private phone conversation
something like "Can't somebody kill that idiot of a president we've got" can easily be construed by fanatics as an attempt to murder George W. Bush.

After all, the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay haven't done anything more "criminal" than this.
 
  • #17
arildno said:
Because, moose&russ watters, saying in private phone conversation
something like "Can't somebody kill that idiot of a president we've got" can easily be construed by fanatics as an attempt to murder George W. Bush.
After all, the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay haven't done anything more "criminal" than this.
Perhaps this is a bit of an exageration?
I and friends of mine have deliberately said all kinds of no-no phrases on the phone for the specific purpose of seeing what would happen. Well that and because we were ****ing around. Nothing ever happened. We've talking about the mob, kidnappings, drugs, drug running, gun running, bombs, assasinating the president, yada yada. It makes you wonder.
 
  • #18
Astronuc,
...The Bush administration apparently spies on people who do not agree with policy, which has nothing to do with national security.

That is one of my concerns.

TSA,
Perhaps this is a bit of an exageration?
I and friends of mine have deliberately said all kinds of no-no phrases on the phone for the specific purpose of seeing what would happen. Well that and because we were ****ing around. Nothing ever happened. We've talking about the mob, kidnappings, drugs, drug running, gun running, bombs, assasinating the president, yada yada. It makes you wonder.

More likely its because you are or were being covertly observed and as long as your a staunch Bushie you canna do no-ting wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Amp1 said:
More likely its because you are being covertly observed and as long as your a staunch Bushie you canna do no-ting wrong.
But I'm not a "bushie".
 
  • #20
Sorry, my bad TSA. I don't know why you gave me the feeling you flowed along the types of lines Russ follow. Again my apologies.
 
  • #21
I'm a centrist(or fence sitter), I like sticking up for the underdog (which conservatives are around here), and I like to play devil's advocate. Considering those things I am sure I probably have said several things on here that may have made you think that I was a "bushie" so no worries.:smile:
 
  • #22
Looks like this country is headed back to 1984. Bring on the thought police.
 
  • #23
The NSA has had the capability to spy on communications in the US or abroad for quite a while.

What's new is the Bush administration directing surveillance within the US without warrants.

Considering the mindset that has developed since the 70's (surveillance solely for the purpose of discovering damaging information about political opponents was discovered in the 70's), I doubt there's any malicious actions being taken by the NSA. The problem is what's almost sure to happen sometime in the future if you don't hold the line on uncontrolled surveillance of US citizens. If it's happened before (abuse of personal information about political opponents), it'll eventually happen again.
 
  • #24
Thank goodness there are those with some common sense--including Republicans:

Senate rejects reauthorization of Patriot Act
Associated Press
Updated: 1:34 p.m. ET Dec. 16, 2005

Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and GOP congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent... Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won’t accept a short-term extension of the law.

...If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year’s midterm elections. “In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. “The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come.” [:smile: ]

But the Patriot Act’s critics got a boost Friday from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

“I don’t want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,” said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

“It is time to have some checks and balances in this country,” shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “We are more American for doing that.”

“Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit (of) ... a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security,” said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10485860/

In view of our poor homeland security, most specifically our borders, terrorists could have attacked many times but simply have chosen to bleed us in other ways and places. Anyone who believes they are protected by the Patriot Act or NSA, or trusts the likes of Bush, Gonzales, Frist, etc. with their civil liberties needs to end up in a secret prison. And the rest of us will leave you there to rot--I'm sure you understand and won't mind taking it for the team.
 
  • #25
No kidding. The Bush admin has shown much more interest in eliminating or compromising rights than protecting the country. Unfortunately, we have those who continually rationalized every loss of liberty, and who make every effort to undermine the Constitution that they claim to protect and value. They, and those who support them are the real enemy. They are the real threat to your freedoms and way of life.
 
  • #26
No kidding. The Bush admin has shown much more interest in eliminating or compromising rights than protecting the country. Unfortunately, we have those who continually rationalized every loss of liberty, and who make every effort to undermine the Constitution that they claim to protect and value. They, and those who support them are the real enemy. They are the real threat to your freedoms and way of life.
No blame on people who cry wolf?
 
  • #27
Hurkyl said:
No blame on people who cry wolf?
Actually no, because the people crying "wolf" are not the ones in the present US administration who are advocating&celebrating the use of torture on innocent people locked up in Guantanimo and other places.
 
  • #28
rachmaninoff said:
Echelon didn't spy on US citizens in the US.

Is it ture that ignorance is bliss?
 
  • #29
arildno said:
Because, moose&russ watters, saying in private phone conversation
something like "Can't somebody kill that idiot of a president we've got" can easily be construed by fanatics as an attempt to murder George W. Bush.
After all, the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay haven't done anything more "criminal" than this.

NSA workers aren't stupid. They would know if you are joking around/not being fully serious. That and I doubt they would even pay any attention to it, unless complete plans were made, and then maybe, just maybe, something would happen.
 
  • #30
Actually no, because the people crying "wolf" are not the ones in the present US administration who are advocating&celebrating the use of torture on innocent people locked up in Guantanimo and other places.
Did you mean to imply that you are unable to come up with an adequate response, or was it just a mistake you made in your rush to make a "witty" comeback?

(Seriously; this kind of "reply" is so prevalent that it leads me to believe that you really are unable to come up witn adequate responses)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Revealed: US Military Eavesdropped on American Citizens
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
News Do NSA wiretaps really involve data mining of all our telecommunications?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Could a Disabled Spy Satellite Pose a Threat to Earth?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
12K
News Should the Times and the Washington post be presecuted
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
News CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
News Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
News Is Criticizing Government Leaders Considered Sedition?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
News Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K