Interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell 112
Schneier is reporting that Mike McConnell, U.S. National Intelligence Director, recently gave an interesting interview to the El Paso Times. "I don't think he's ever been so candid before. For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security."
NOBODY POST!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Interview (Score:1)
Dupe! (Score:5, Informative)
New here! (Score:2)
Still, as a fellow fan of Crowe and Sting, glad you got a 5
That's what I'm wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
You kinda wonder who thought it'd be a good idea to let him say what he did.
Re:That's what I'm wondering (Score:4, Insightful)
There in the first paragraphs he basically states that his primary objective when he came in was to make any communication between foreign parties handled by an American entity and passing via an American wire or fibre a fair game with no judicial oversight for purposes of foreign intelligence including one for purely economical purposes. Nothing to do with terrorism or domestic surveillance. Terrorism comes much later as an excuse.
Now add to that the particular insistence of this administration that an American person or corporation has to comply with American laws anywhere around the world and what does this mean from the perspective of "using american communications" and you get the real picture of what is this all about. It is not surprising that while they got lucky via judge-shopping the first time they got stopped the second time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not new.
I worked for a former spook who told me all about this and how they were helping design some of the hardware directly with the telco's. Of course, he left the spook-business in '84 or so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The world has changed dramatically since the mid 80-es. In the mid-80es the world was a world of national telco monopolies. French traffic stayed in France not traversing a single US fibre. German traffic stayed in Germany and so on. If you wanted to tap a conversation you had to get down and dirty and tap it locally. And most importantly the spooks had to do this themselves. Backdooring ATT switches did not really give them anything as far as Alcatel switches in France or the Marconi ones in t
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the ATT trial. RTFA for f*** sake.
I, for one, care about the AT&T trial.
Remember the whole "soap, ballot, jury, ammo" box thing?
Since Congress is seriously considering passing a law granting immunity to the telcos, it looks like the first two boxes have already failed America.
I feel that the AT&T trial will be a good venue to test out the applicable laws concerning wiretapping, assuming they can get past the wall of secrecy the gov't keeps trying to build up. IMO, the plaintiffs' case just got a bit stronger and it's the only pract
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good rule to me - a person should, through maintaining citizenship, agree to follow laws of at least some country in the world rather than escaping all responsibility by moving around. American tourists having sex with child prostitutes should be prosecuted (while adult prostitution or smoking pot should be legal abroad or at home). A
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Transcript here
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A67 5 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.
well not exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
interesting that he somehow connects the leak about domestic spying and our people dying. we've lost more people in Iraq and pissed off a lot more people than the domestic spying
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths from WTC: 2,726 See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm51SPa6. htm [cdc.gov]
US deaths in Iraq, to date: 3,774 See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_ca sualties.htm [globalsecurity.org]
Could better 'domestic spying' have prevented the WTC atrocities, well, maybe.
See http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333 835,00.html [time.com]
From that last article,
"Could al-Qaeda's plot have been foiled if the U.S. had taken the fight to t
Re:well not exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.
Re: (Score:1)
Baa (Score:2)
Quit being a sheep. You have a far greater chance of being killed by an auto accident, an earthquake, or even getting struck by lightning than by an act of terrorism. Even if they blow up a mall somewhere each week. - http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.html [reason.com]
Odds of Dying (Score:4, Interesting)
Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.
By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?
America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.
So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.
Re: (Score:2)
1. To the people who posted along the lines of 'gutless, coward etc.', well kids, I fought for my country and have the pieces missing from me to prove it. I did not lose them due to smoking or to auto accidents.
2. As for odds of dying, well, I'm pretty good at stats, thanks. However, please note that I choose to drink, smoke, drive and fly - both private and commercial. I'm aware of the odds, and am no more afraid of them than I would
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was scared shitless in combat. So I guess you're right.
How about you? Ever been to war, brave man?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But nobody wants to talk about that. It's way better to fuck the American people over and send our boys off to die in the asshole of the world than to actually keep Americans safe while protecting everyone's civil liberties.
Let's not even TALK about the fact that the deb
Re: (Score:2)
As you'll see from my other posts, I was there in the shit, so I know what being 'sent off to die' means.
Like many others before me, I found out that it was pretty much a waste of time, money, youth and life. But I least I came back alive.
The real concern is, while we are witnessing a massive erosion of our civil liberties
Not news (Score:2)
We're all aiding the terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
I read sections of this article and it's like reading an interview with a government in Bizarro world, we'll it's like reading an interview with just about anyone in this Administration I suppose.
McConnell admitted the Telecos were in on illegal wiretapping (yes it was illegal, the FISA courts have told Bush this several times). He then went on to say that they should get immunity because that revelation would hurt their buisiness. He claims to be affraid it would put them out of business. Way to teach big corporations to not engage in illegal activities, grant them blanket immunity.
McConnell described how many people in and out of the US were currently under surveillance. He gave out more detail than anyone [I've seen] has been asking about. The critics of illegal wiretapping don't ask for methods and proceedures they just want this done within the constraints of the law. McConnell was getting awfully close to giving out dangerous information.
McConnell then states that publication of this information will kill Americans. No Shit, he said that. First off, it's hyperbole.. he didn't give out that much info but he started to get close. Second, why the fuck is National Intelligence Director giving out information to a reporter that will get Americans killed? I suspect he believes that.
There's something wrong with McConnell.
Impeach everyone
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's something wrong with McConnell.
Yes, he was being candid. Does that make him a loon? No. Look, half the trouble with domestic surveillance and spying in general is that people know it's going on, in their hearts they know it's an important source of information to prevent bad things from happening, but their psyches can't get wrapped around the idea that someone may be watching them. Take work for example -- you hear stories all the time about people being caught at work doing illegal things, usually because of emails or browsing record
Re: (Score:2)
in their hearts they know it's an important source of information to prevent bad things from happening, but their psyches can't get wrapped around the idea that someone may be watching them.
I sure hope not. The reason so many people buy into the, "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" BS is precisely because so many people have nothing to hide. What they should be worried about is people who do have something legitimate to hide.
Like a business that competes with one of the megalocorps that make up the military-industrial-complex - they don't need their proprietary information being 'leaked' to the competition, but if the competition is a DHS contractor doing the spying then
Re:We're all aiding the terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, a vague word like "reasonable" is the lynchpin of all liberty. We have to trust politicians to be reasonable. We're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
(Figure I'd make it blanket, I hate all extremists, no matter what arbitrary direction they claim to be walking in)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The FISA courts don't make this determination, so stop that stupid bullshit.
The wiretaps weren't illegal, the SUPREME FUCKING COURT has said so. Making shit up because you don't like what he did is pretty fucking pathetic. I'd expect it from Bush, but why are you doing it?
Sometimes I wish I could slap the fuck out of you lying idiots, it makes it impossible to discuss these things when you're spreading misinformation because the realit
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please provide a link to the supreme court ruling? I knew one of the cases was dismissed because there wasn't enough, (any), proof that those bringing the suit were targets of the surveillance. However, as far as I know there are still several cases pending, and SCOTUS hadn't ruled on the legality of the program. If this has been done, I would like to know about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:We're all aiding the terrorists (Score:5, Informative)
Now the judges of the secrete "FISA court" have expressed their outrage but none of them have put it into a ruling or anything legal. I also don't see this as anyone with their backs against the wall. It is just another round of going on the offense. Unfortunately, for this administration, it seems like that is something new so I can understand your misinterpreting it.
Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill USans (Score:5, Interesting)
Last week, he also said [wired.com] that, if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".
Here's a quote from the interview with El Paso Times:
A. That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing.
What's this guy smoking? Or maybe it is a threat to the members of congress à la the film, Enemy of the State.
Re:Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill US (Score:3, Informative)
See Wikipedia: Enemy of the State [wikipedia.org] if you haven't seen it (good film). Although, the NSA murder a senator in that case (not a congressman) who refuses to vote for increased warrantless surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill US (Score:3, Insightful)
if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".
[....]
What's this guy smoking?
He is smoking his job.
Imagine that you have his job. And imagine that you take it seriously.
Working against you, from your point of view, is a very leaky organization - Congress.
As part of your job, you must talk to people like Reyes (D-Texas) and Leahy (D-Vermont) and Specter (D-Rino).
People who would disclose secrets regarding sources and methods, just to get a vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Checks and Balances (Score:1)
Maybe he came clean on the telco intercepts because the grandson of the man who helped hide the telecom bunkers threatened to start posting their locations on Google Maps.
Glenn L. Powers
http://www.globalshout.net/ [globalshout.net]
"U.S. National Intelligence" (Score:4, Funny)
Secrecy for its own sake ? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the things that is so ridiculous -- almost surreal -- about the government's position on this is that they seem, on the one hand, to attribute almost mystical powers to potential terrorists (they can blow up a plane with 4 ounces of nail polish remover !!!), and on the other hand to assume that they're dumber than rocks. The administration has said they're snooping on phone calls and E-mail; I don't think it takes a terrorist Einstein to figure out that they might be getting assistance from folks like AT&T.
To take another example, the administration claimed, a while back, that national security was threatened by a story that they were monitoring international funds transfers through SWIFT. Of course, various members of the government had given speeches urging that financial links to potential terrorists be blocked. And, the last time I looked, SWIFT [wikipedia.org] (the international body that develops standards and procedures for funds transfers) had 8,000+ member banks. Its existence is hardly a closely-guarded secret, and I don't think it would take too many Nobel Prize winners to figure out that transfers through SWIFT might be monitored.
Re: (Score:2)
Discussion here often concludes that any bad guys or foreigners must know, or allow for, the fact that US authorities must be doing things (surveillance, torture, renditions, assasinations, overthrows of elected officials not deemed desireable, etc.) they are act
This is a managed interview (Score:4, Interesting)
All Well And Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting up a tap into the wires that carry ANY American's communication without some sort of check on their power to thwart abuse is unacceptable. As in, 'in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.' They have to put some kind of oversight in place and it can't be Albert Gonzales. It has to be judicial branch.
They could have amended the FISA law to remain legal (ie, concordant with the Constitution), but instead they passed a law that does indeed violate the Constitution. And that's pretty scary, that these agencies and our President and our Congress are not sensitive to protecting the law.
There's some strong arguments against the whole program. Slashdot covered the issue of 'well what if someone hacks the tap?' and that's a big problem. There's huge potential for abuse of power, as well. And there's always the prospect of the erosion of trust within a society which leads to totalitarian-style culture. There's enough doubt about the value of this thing that it should be forced through the courts.
There's still no evidence having the exact specifications of a pending attack on the USA would enable our government to do anything to prevent it. On September 11, 2001 attacks happened despite sufficient warning. They lacked the will to properly defend the country then. Now is no different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have known for a long time that the US, UK, AU, and a few other countries have had agreements where we can monitor other calls and then we exchange anything important found. Echelon was a crutch on this issue where they started using computers to listen for key words then record from there and thereby reducing the manpower needed to do it. I ser
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, go ahead and look up 'warrant' in a law dictionary (NOT on last.fm) and you'll see that it's most specifically a writ by a judge. The new law says Albert gets to send a sealed memorandum to the Chief Justice and be don
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't say a warrant is required. It says and no warran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These claims I've heard repeatedly from various unnamed news sources and government officials that "they're only after the bad guys" -- no one backs that up. It's like if I say "yeah, here's an invisible check for $1,000,000,000,000,0.....00,000,000,000.00," good luck getting it cashed.
That's it. That's my whole argument. My argument is that we need oversight.
I can accept 9/11 if there had been oversight to make sur
Re: (Score:2)
Industry Ties (Score:3, Informative)
Greenwald comments [salon.com]: "McConnell's ties to these companies are so deep and numerous that it really rises to the level of conflict of interest for him to demand -- on national security grounds, no less -- that they be granted full immunity from liability for past illegal acts. He is, in essence, demanding immunity for vast numbers of his former partners, clients, associates and scores of business interests in which he had, if not still has, a substantial stake. This conflict is glaring and extreme, but Democrats said nothing about it when granting prospective immunity to this industry at his insistence. Thus far, they have also said nothing in the face of McConnell's demands that this immunity now be made retroactive as well."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've added numbers and letters to more specifically enumerate the nonsense.
1) They violate the 1st Amendment by a) opening mail, b) caging demonstrators and c) banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
2) They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
3) They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
4) They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
5) They violate the 8th Amendment by
Live Free Or Die (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Killing Me (Score:1)
This kind of logic really gets me going. What is the point really of having an NSA at all, I mean if they think they are so fan
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gah. I must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Old News (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This might be a sign of how crazy he really is.
Re: (Score:1)
Bin Laden started using personal envoys instead of Sat phones after it was leaked that we can track the sat phone calls.
Leaked to the world at large by the Los Angeles Times on September 7, 1998.
We do not know if the LA Times leaked, intentionally or not, the information to bin Laden before publishing the story.
In any case, it seems bin Laden quit using his phone within two weeks of the LA Times article.
And it seems that the Clinton Administration's prosecutors mentioned the monitoring during the trial of the 1993 WTC bombers.
But it wasn't until the time frame of the LA Times article that bin Laden quit using his sat phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
monster.com is not news. (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for lack of trying. [slashdot.org]
hey (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We are here for the "Mod parent Up", "Mod parent Down" proxy moderators with the assumption the majority of moderators are idiots. Oh wait..
I choose to browse at sqrt($score) so this post is going to become imaginary very soon.
Proxy Moderation (-5)