http://www.prisonplanet.com/…

Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said “of course there is”.

Skip to 4:30:

Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

Anyone who doesn’t think the Internet as we know it can be controlled by the government is missing the obvious. The telecoms, which own all the major hubs and backbones, are in bed with the government. They now have immunity from instances where they work with the government to spy on subjects. They work with the NSA to tap major internet hubs with machines able to do realtime analysis of all traffic passing through it. The government even provides them with monopoly status in many parts of the country isolating them from competition. Just like all large corporations which are regulated… they are in bed with the corporatists running the government.

http://arstechnica.com/…

The US last week released its 2007 wiretapping stats, and they show that such surveillance is up a full 20 percent over the year before. The number of non-secret wiretaps is higher than it has ever been in the last decade, and not a single application was denied in all of 2007. If you’re concerned about privacy, though, the report makes clear that you’re statistically unlikely to be targeted unless you use a cell phone to run drugs. Murder might also earn you a wiretap, but apart from that, the authorities don’t seem to use wiretaps in all but unusual cases.

2,208 wiretaps were requested last year, up from 1,839 the year before, and the vast majority of them were run by state authorities; only 457 wiretaps were executed by the feds. No applications for wiretap were denied, but this is hardly uncommon. Since 1997, some 15,000 wiretaps have been made, but only four applications were rejected in that entire time.

When we look at the prevalence of wiretaps, two trends stand out. One is that taps are almost exclusively used on “portable devices,” including digital pagers and portable phones. In fact, 94 percent of all taps authorized last year were for such devices. The second trend is that most wiretaps are used in narcotics cases. 81 percent of all taps were for drug-related crime, with murder and assault coming in a distant second (6 percent).

Wiretaps apparently have something in common with shopping at bulk retailers; when you buy more items at once, the price goes down. The cost per intercept has been dropping since 2003, when it peaked at $62,164. In 2007, that number had fallen to $48,477 per investigation. While that still sounds pricey, the report notes that drug intercepts have often been used to make big busts. One set of 2007 wiretaps in Morris County, New Jersey led to the arrest of 105 people; another, in New York, scooped up 51 people, 48 of whom were later convicted. Another 57-day wiretap in California led to the seizure of 40 pounds of methamphetamine, four kilograms of cocaine, and $700,000 in cash.Of course, those are just regular warrants. The Justice Department also released information this week on secret warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These numbers are also rising, and have been going up since 2001; the increase is a dramatic one. In 2001, the Court approved only 1,012 applications, but approved 2,370 last year.

I’m glad the government is getting a better rate at which to waste our money on rights infringement. Is it likely that these larger drug busts got guys who were actually harming people? Yes, but those people should be arrested for that harm and not providing a drug to another individual in a completely consensual act. This war on drugs is a war on the public. It’s a negative sum game. A drug addiction is a personal problem, a family problem, a community problem. It’s a medical problem. It should be treated as such. In the least I’d like to see some consistency. Alcohol and tobacco are the precursor to far more harm then marijuana or LSD.

And as for the privacy invasion. Wasn’t all this FISA enhancement requested for terrorism? Why are we catching NY governors paying for sex and people selling goods?

http://www.mercurynews.com/…

For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn’t apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,” the footnote states, referring to a document titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.”

Suzanne Spaulding, a national security law expert and former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said she found the Fourth Amendment reference in the footnote troubling, but added: “To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring.”

Not as if this is really all that surprising given what they have done but can she serious? The fact they thought it for 10 seconds would be enough for me not to ever trust those people again. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear and no one in the Justice Department should have ever thought it “had no application to domestic military operations.”

http://www.cnn.com/…

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is under investigation for allegedly meeting with a prostitute in a Washington hotel, two sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN. One of the sources said Spitzer is identified in a criminal complaint as “Client-9,” and that Spitzer’s alleged involvement was caught on a federal wiretap.

The criminal complaint involved an alleged high-end prostitution ring run out of New York. Four individuals were charged last week with allegedly running it.

Prosecutors say the ring provided prostitutes costing as much as $3,100 an hour. The criminal complaint did not name any customers, but authorities did intercept text messages, e-mails and telephone calls.

Spitzer on Monday said he “acted in way that violates his obligation to his family,” without elaborating or taking questions.

His statement came hours after the New York Times reported he told senior administration officials he had been involved in a prostitution ring.

While I love seeing statist like Spitzer getting his this is just ridiculous. 1) Who the hell cares about his infidelity? 2) Why do we continue this retarded prohibition on individuals exchanging money for sex? 3) Why the hell is the federal government wiretapping people who are suspect of requesting or providing sex for money? I sortof understand 1 and 2 but no one in the media is making any sortof noise about 2 & 3. There are all kinds of property rights issues and Constitutional questions here that no one is bringing up outside the libertarian and civil liberty news circles. I don’t think much needs to be said really. [insert your typical anti-prostitution prohibition and pro privacy / 4th Amendment argument here]. Aren’t they supposed to be busy spying on Americans speaking with foreigners or something?

http://www.out-law.com/page-8884 

The US government, through the National Security Agency, has been tapping phone lines without court warrants since shortly after the terrorist attacks in the US of September 2001. The till-then secret programme was revealed by the New York Times in 2005.

The government claims that the actions were legal but has made all details of the programme classified. This causes problems for the ACLU since only those who have been wiretapped can sue, but the information about who has been tapped is kept secret.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s national security project, said that the case raised worries about the unchecked power of the president who, as the executive arm, is just one branch of government.

“It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honoured,” he said. “Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances.”

The ACLU had tried to appeal a verdict of a US Court of Appeal which ruled that it could not prove that its communications had been monitored, and so could not prove that the programme had harmed any party to the case. It had sued on behalf of itself, journalist and scholars.

Separate law suits are being conducted in the US against the telecommunications companies that allowed the surveillance to happen without court-issued warrants.

There are also political struggles over amendments to US law that would allow warrantless wiretaps of non-US citizens in the US who are communicating with people overseas.

A temporary measure expired over the weekend and the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to make the law permanent.

That law included controversial immunity for telecoms companies. Congress has proposed a law that does extend wiretapping but does not grant telcos immunity from prosecution for their actions.

“The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security,” said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU’s legal director.

You want to prove to the judicial branch that the executive branch is breaking the law and show that the legislative branch is at least complacent if not helping them do so. To have a case you must prove you’ve been harmed but the only proof is held by those you are accusing. They won’t confirm or deny the existence of the proof nor would they turn it over because it’s a matter of national security. The judicial system says that since you can’t get the evidence you don’t have a case.

Does anyone else find this a little troubling?

http://www.downsizedc.org/…

Yesterday, 19 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 independent voted to violate the Constitution and their oaths of office. Only 28 Democrats, 1 independent, and ZERO Republicans remained true to their oaths. They voted to pass S. 2248, a new law designed to replace the so-called “Protect America Act.”* It permits the President to spy on Americans without a warrant.
* It grants retroactive immunity to tele-communications companies that collaborated with the Bush administration in previous warrantless spying, thereby creating an incentive for other companies to engage in similar crimes in the future (only Qwest Communications insisted on warrants).

All hope is NOT lost. S. 2248 cannot become law unless the House agrees to its provisions. Fortunately, the House version of this bill, while not perfect, is signficantly better. Our best hope, and we must take it, is to tell the House to stick by their version of the bill.

You can go here and use DownsizeDC’s services to send a form letter against this issue to your congressmen. If the Congress and administratation believe the wiretaps were not illegal than why would they need to worry about lawsuits? John McCain voted for this. Continently Senator Clinton and Obama missed this vote. Paul issued this statement on it on January 30th.