Wednesday, September 13, 2006

NSA Bill Performs a Patriot Act

A bill radically redefining and expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop and search the houses of American citizens without court approval passed a key Senate committee Wednesday, and may be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S.2453, the "National Security Surveillance Act," (.pdf) which was co-written by the committee's chairman Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn) in concert with the White House.

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the few senators to be briefed on the NSA program. Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

In contrast, Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to surveill suspected terrorists or spies.

Lisa Graves, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU, called the bill "stunning."

"The administration has taken their illegal conduct in wiretapping Americans without court orders, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Constitution, and used it as springboard to not only get FISA changed to allow the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but to actually, going forward, not give protections to American's privacy rights," Graves said.

Jim Dempsey, the policy director for the more moderate Center for Democracy and Technology, described the bill's passage out of committee as "light years or miles beyond the Patriot Act."

"What started out as Senator Specter wanting to rein in the president's program has turned on its head and is now not just a legislative ratification of the program, but an expansion of warrantless wiretapping of Americans," Dempsey said. "It would allow the NSA to turn its vacuum cleaners on even domestic phone calls and e-mails of citizens.

"They do all of this in Alice-in-Wonderland fashion by defining all kinds of categories of surveillance to be not surveillance," said Dempsy.

Specter, who called NSA's warrantless surveillance a "festering sore on our body politic", champions his bill, since it allows, but does nor require, the Administration to submit the whole surveillance program to review by a secretive court. Specter says President Bush promised to submit the NSA program to the court, if the bill passes.

The bill also strikes from U.S. law a requirement that that all surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists be done in accordance with FISA. But an aide for Specter disputes that this radically changes FISA or the balance of powers: Specter considers this to be an update to FISA, that moves the law towards where technology is now, according to the aide who spoke on background.

President Bush has acknowledged the NSA program monitors Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without court authorization, but says the program only targets communications where one side or the other have suspected terrorist connections.

Feinstein says her briefings lead her to believe the current system needs only minor changes, such as increasing the number of judges that issue warrants.

"I have been briefed on the terrorist surveillance program, and I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for content collection on U.S. persons under the FISA process," Feinstein said Wednesday in a press release.

That program has recently been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Detroit, and is being challenged by more than 20 lawsuits across the country.

The bill:

  • Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.
  • Expands the section of law that allows the Attorney General to authorize spying on foreign embassies, so long as there's no "substantial likelihood" that an American's communication would be captured.
  • Repeals the provision of federal law that allows the government unfettered wiretapping and physical searches without warrants or notification for 15 days after a declaration of war. The lack of any Congressional restraint on the president's wartime powers arguably puts the President at the height, rather than the ebb, of his powers in any time of war, even an undeclared one.
  • Repeals the provision of federal law that limits the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches to a period of 15 days after a declaration of war.
  • Repeals the provision of federal law that puts a time limit on the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches against Americans. Under current law, the president has that power for only 15 days following a declaration of war.
  • Allows the Attorney General, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.
  • Moves all court challenges to the NSA surveillance program to a secretive court in Washington D.C. comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only government lawyers would be allowed in the courtroom.
  • Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be surveilled and the methods to be used.

A markup of the corresponding House bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) was scheduled for today, but was cancelled.

Specter has moved to have his bill voted next week on via a voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill.

for more information

Crime, Punishment Made Easy

BEIJING - - A court in China has used a software program to help decide prison sentences in more than 1,500 criminal cases, a Hong Kong newspaper said on Wednesday.

The software, tested for two years in a court in Zibo, a city in the eastern coastal province of Shandong, covered about 100 different crimes, including robbery, rape, murder and state security offences, the South China Morning Post said, citing the software's developer, Qin Ye.

"The software is aimed at ensuring standardized decisions on prison terms. Our programs set standard terms for any subtle distinctions in different cases of the same crime," Qin was quoted as saying.

A Beijing-based software company had worked with the Zichuan District Court in Zibo since 2003 to develop the program and input mainland criminal law, the paper said.

Judges enter details of a case and the system produces a sentence, the paper said.

"The software can avoid abuse of discretionary power of judges as a result of corruption or insufficient training," the paper quoted Zichuan District Court chief judge, Wang Hongmei, as saying.

But some Chinese newspapers criticized the move as a farce that highlighted the "laziness of the court" and that would not curb judicial corruption as touted.

The software would be adopted by more courts in Shandong province, the paper said.

But it did not say how big a role it played in sentencing, as Chinese court rulings are often decided by "trial committees" made up of judges and Communist Party officials.

Despite campaigns to reform China's courts, judicial abuses, official influence and arbitrary sentencing remain a widespread concern, particularly in lower courts where many judges have not even been to law school.

On Tuesday, the Supreme People's Court said that media spokesmen would be appointed by local courts in China to release information on open trials and court activities to ensure the public's "right to know."

But details of cases involving state or commercial secrets, privacy and juvenile delinquency are banned from being disclosed, the Beijing News said.

Making the case for movies

So, who wants to buy a movie from iTunes anyway?

That is a question I thought about quite a bit over the last little while. I buy a lot of music from iTunes, several television shows and most recently a few music videos. Then I asked myself if I would spend $10 to $15 to purchase a feature film.

My answer: Hell yeah!

That answer actually took more consideration than I thought it would, but after talking to my wife and looking at our lifestyle, it didn’t take long to figure out it would work for us.

As the father of a 13-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old son, get-togethers at our house are frequent. Often times the kids want to watch a movie and they have seen DVDs we have on the shelf, so that means a trip to the video store.

More often than not, this happens just after I have comfortably sat down in my chair with a refreshing bottle of Heineken, ready to enjoy my evening. Now, I have nothing against the video store—I do, however, hate going to the video store with three or four teenage girls in tow. If you haven’t done it before, don’t be a hero and think it’s a piece of cake—it’s not.

So, here’s the question. Would I pay $10to $15 to stay home, scroll through iTunes, pick a movie, download it and then send the kids upstairs to watch it on Apple’s iTV? You betcha!

I talked to some people that said they won’t buy movies online because they want the extras that come with the DVD. Good point—so I pondered on this for a while and thought when is the last time I watched the extras on a DVD? Besides music concerts, I can’t remember if I ever have watched the extras.

My kids aren’t the only reason I would buy a movie from iTunes. Let’s not forget my wonderful wife. I know there are times we would watch a movie if it was handy, but at the end of a long day, as the two of us are sitting on the couch totally wiped out, neither one of us wants to get up and drive to the video store.

Again, with the quick access of the iTunes Store, I’m sure there would have been a few movies in my Library from this summer alone.

I also travel a fair bit and usually take some television shows with me to watch at night when I get back to my hotel. Last night I scrolled through the movies on iTunes and thought how nice it was to have the option to choose a movie.

Last year, I wrote about my reasons for buying so much music from iTunes. Mostly it comes down to convenience for me—it’s as simple as that. Purchasing movies is no different, for all the reasons I listed above.

I want to be able to get what I want, when I want, without needlessly leaving my bottle of Heineken to get warm.

for more information

Technology Blog Top Sites get it
Free Hit Counter

Blogarama