Brekend Nieuws | Forum | Brits Nieuws | Het Nieuws van de V.S. | Het Nieuws van de wereld | Politiek Nieuws | Nieuws sc.i-technologie | Het Nieuws van de oorlog & van het Terrorisme | Het Nieuws van sporten | Multimedia | Vastgestelde Homepage

Maandag, 7 Juli, 2008

Door Bradley Olson | Met Congres over de rand van het schetsen van nieuwe parameters voor Het Agentschap van de nationale Veiligheid afluisterend tussen verdachte vreemdelingen en Amerikanen, verlaten de wetgevers grotendeels een gastheer van overheidsprogramma's onaangeroerd die de critici zeggen veel meer binnenlands toezicht dan wiretaps impliceert die zij gehad ben= om te verhelpen.

Deze programma's - de meesten van hoogst geclassificeerd hen - worden in werking gesteld door een alfabetsoep van federale intelligentie en wetshandhavingsagentschappen. Zij ziften, slaan en analyseren de de mededelingen, het besteden gewoonten en de reispatronen van de V.S. op. burgers, die naar verdachte activiteit zoeken.

Het toezicht omvat programma's voor het exploiteren van gegevens die NSA en toestaan FBI om door grote databanken van e-mail, telefoongesprekken en andere mededelingen, niet voor selectieve informatie, maar op zoek naar verdachte patronen te ziften.

Andere informatie, zoals routinebanktransacties, wordt in gegevensbestanden gehouden die zo ook door worden gecontroleerd Het centrale Agentschap van de Intelligentie.

„Er is vrijwel geen tak van de V.S. overheid die niet op één of andere manier betrokken bij controle of toezicht, de“ bovengenoemde Hulp van Matthew, een intelligentiehistoricus en een kameraad bij de Archieven van de Nationale Veiligheid bij Is George Washington Universiteit. „Wij werken in een moedige nieuwe wereld.“

De federale regels beperken de manieren enkele informatie kan onder overheidsagentschappen worden gebruikt en worden gedeeld. In afwachting van veranderingen in Buitenlandse Intelligentie het Akte van het Toezicht talrijke bepalingen opgezet bevat om de privacy van Amerikanen te beschermen. Maar er zijn weinig gelijkaardige bescherming met andere soorten toezicht.

In het kader van het Fisa- voorstel, bijvoorbeeld, zou een afschrift van de CIA of Een nsa- samenvatting van een onschuldig sociaal gesprek tussen een buitenlandse terrorist en zijn verwant in de Verenigde Staten niet gedeeld worden met andere intelligentieanalisten. Zelfs als het gesprek later werd gevonden om onderzoeksverdienste te hebben, de V.S. naam van de verwant en andere identificerende informatie zouden of opgesteld worden of slechts in beperkte omstandigheden geopenbaard om agentschappen te selecteren.

Het beleid van Bush debatteert dat de privacy en de burgerlijke vrijhedenbescherming op zijn plaats voor toezicht niet dat door de regels FISA wordt behandeld „.“ ongekend zijn Naast voor het exploiteren van gegevens, gebruik van financiële transactiegegevensbestanden en satellietbeeldspraak, omvat het toezicht de controle van de reispatronen van luchtvaartlijnpassagiers.

Het gebruik van satellieten door de lokale agentschappen van de wetshandhaving, bijvoorbeeld, is verondersteld om door een stringent goedkeuringsprotocol bij het Ministerie van Bureau van de Toepassingen van de Veiligheid van het Geboorteland te gaan het pas gevormde Nationale.

But critics say the safeguards don’t always work. Some blunders in the use of such protections have become public. NewYorker writer Lawrence Wright wrote in January about one such experience. In 2002, while he was researching The Looming Tower, his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on al-Qaida, two members of an FBI terrorism task force arrived at his home. Why, they asked, had his daughter been speaking with someone in the United Kingdom who was in touch with suspected al-Qaida operatives?

It wasn’t his daughter, he told them flatly. Wright himself had made the calls. And the person he contacted was a British civil rights lawyer who had asked him not to speak with her clients, some of whom are relatives of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant.

“My daughter is no terrorist - she went to high school with the Bush twins,” Wright said. “I was taken aback. They were apparently monitoring my phones.”

Wright said he was particularly surprised because he was aware of protections supposedly in place to conceal his name and other identifying information that would have been gathered during the creation of transcripts of the call.

Wright said he doubted the government would have been able to get a warrant for the information, and he said he didn’t know how the FBI obtained his daughter’s name, let alone got the impression that she was communicating with the British lawyer.

Critics say such stories recall 1960s and 1970s-era abuses - the CIA’s involvement in political activities, and the FBI monitoring of peace groups and civil rights activists - that prompted Congress to pass far-reaching laws bringing foreign-intelligence gathering and any domestic surveillance under strict controls and judicial oversight.

Although the latest FISA proposal includes numerous provisions for a secret court to monitor and authorize surveillance, and for inspectors general to keep tabs on who’s being monitored by various agencies, little oversight exists for surveillance programs that fall outside FISA scrutiny.

Congress has requested, and in many cases received, briefings on some of the programs. But its dissatisfaction with the amount of information provided by the administration has frequently resulted in holding back funding for programs.

The House Appropriations Committee took such a step this week, holding back funding for the National Applications Office’s effort to use U.S. satellites for domestic purposes until August, when the Government Accountability Office will release a report about how the program will handle civil liberties and privacy concerns.

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the department had repeatedly met with lawmakers and would comply with any review process. He called efforts to stall the funding “misguided” and a potential threat to public safety and security missions.

Even when Congress has received information, lawmakers say their questions or concerns are often addressed within the agency that is responsible for the surveillance, amounting to a practice of self-policing.

“You don’t have to look far into history to know that when the government, any government, is given secret authorities, that those authorities are ultimately abused,” said Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “You don’t even have to attribute bad motives to anyone. In an intelligence officer’s zeal to protect the country, they often will overstep their bounds.”

In part to assuage privacy concerns, the Department of Homeland Security has established a privacy czar to ensure that the technologies and programs initiated by the federal agency do not erode privacy laws or violate civil liberties. While many have lauded the creation of such a position, some believe it should be expanded to a Cabinet-level post in the executive branch, a step that some advocates say would send a powerful message in an age when digitized communications have ballooned and made safeguarding private information vastly more complicated.

“We should have what Canada has, which is a minister of privacy, someone looking out for the privacy issues of Americans,” said James Bamford, an intelligence expert and author on two books about the history of the NSA. “We have armies of people out there trying to pick into everyone’s private life, but we have nobody out there who’s an advocate.”

See More:NSA USA News 

Have Your Say: Domestic spying quietly goes on
Please note, only selected comments will be published.

Or discuss this report in our new forums

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

This entry was posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 9:27 am and is filed under Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version