The Nexus of 2024

Privacy and civil liberties: showdown time on the “Protect” America Act

—

by

jon
in , ,

Update on February 12: Final votes were today. Barack Obama voted against telecom immunity — as did Harry Reid and 29 other Democrats. John McCain along with every single Republican Senator, Joe Lieberman, and 19 Democrats voted for. More here.

Update on Super Tuesday: Ari Melber’s Nation article gives the current snapshot; read the thread for more.

Russ Feingold’s video on YouTube sums it up perfectly:

This Slashdot post on The Technical Risks of the “Protect” America Act is particularly timely given Paul Kiel’s TPMMuckracker update on the situation in Washington: the attempt to invoke cloture went down in flames, with Democrats in general hanging tough, and signs of movement among some key Republicans. This leaves the backers of the bill in a very tough position. (Update on 1/30: the House and Senate have both passed a 15-day extension. See below.) in 30 seconds.And now, on top of that:

A group of respected security researchers has released a paper on the security holes that would be opened up if a broad warrantless wiretapping law is passed. THe subject could hardly be more timely, as Congress is debating the subject now. Steve Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann, and Jennifer Rexford have released a preprint of Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act (PDF), which will appear in the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy. It will hit the stands in a few weeks.

From Matt Blaze’s blog posting:

“As someone who began his professional carrier in the Bell System (and who stayed around through several of its successors), the push for telco immunity represents an especially bitter disillusionment for me. Say what you will about the old Phone Company, but respect for customer privacy was once a deeply rooted point of pride in the corporate ethos. There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not. And it was genuinely part of the culture; we believed in it, even those of us ordinarily disposed toward a skeptical view of the official company line. Now it all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR.”

Discussion and links here.

YouTube and Slashdot matter here because they expose the issue to large numbers of people who wouldn’t otherwise be aware of it. This dynamic lets courageous politicians, activists, technologists, and others who are willing to take a stand get the word out more broadly — and exposes those who are taking craven, opportunistic, and uninformed stances. In a climate where much of the mainstream media follows the administration’s and telco’s framing, social networking technologies allow other perspectives to be fairly heard … and gives people the information to make up their own minds.

Comments

14 responses to “Privacy and civil liberties: showdown time on the “Protect” America Act”

  1. jon Avatar
    jon

    Actually, yesterday was a pretty good day for civil liberties on Slashdot. This report means any politician who votes for the “Protect” America Act will have to answer some very tough questions when running for re-election: “You and your staff didn’t read this report? Or you didn’t understand it? Are you really qualified to protect America?” The House voted to push back the deadline for surveillance bill for 15 days and then went home, leaving the Senate basically no option but to extend — Ryan Singel’s piece on Wired’s Threat Level describes the situation, and gives a hint of the House/Senate power dynamics. As Paul Kiel reports on TPMMuckraker, the latest statement from Harry Reid emphasizes that “Senator Reid is closely working with all Democrats including Senators Feingold and Dodd on this issue.” The Administration’s bluff has been called; Chris Dodd for Attorney General! And there will be plenty of time for this new report to be brought forward under the bright lights of DC. Who knows what’ll happen, but it’s hard to imagine a better framing for the discussion.

    And despite the Qtrax fiasco, there’s good news on the privacy and DRM fronts as well. European Union countries can refuse to disclose names of file sharers on the Internet in civil cases. Spain has some very strong laws here; this decision says the EU laws and treaties don’t trump them. And a magistrate proposed “rule 11-ing” (sanctioning and fining) record companies and lawyers for “gamesmanship” in their lawsuits. This is a blow against shady lawyers (and large corporations employing them) everywhere, and over time may well extend to suits trying to pierce anonymity.

    Reply
  2. jon Avatar
    jon

    Meanwhile in the rest of the world, the only remaining Democratic candidate who’s opposed Real ID dropped out of the race. Ah well. [As a consolation prize, so did anti-civil-liberties Rudy “at least I beat Ron Paul once before throwing in the towel” Giuliani; and in both cases, the writing was increasingly on the wall — the announcements just formalize it.] Edwards is being smart here, maximizing the value of his endorsement while the race is still viewed as up in the air.

    I think it’s likely that the extended debate over surveillance — between now and the election — will change a lot of people’s opinions about Real ID, hopefully including both Obama and Clinton. Edwards for Secretary of Homeland Security!

    Reply
  3. jon Avatar
    jon

    “America’s newspaper of record” weighs in, talking about the “faulty logic — the sort that has made reasoned debate with this administration so difficult in Bush’s state of the union address:

    Take his reference to telecom immunity — an issue that is currently roiling Congress. Mr. Bush had this to say:

    [I]f you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. The Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We have had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.

    It’s a classic case of what logicians call “argument by misdirection.”

    Congress has been having a serious debate about whether to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that apparently helped the government engage in illegal domestic spying. (If it was all on the up-and-up, would there really be such intense pressure on Congress to grant them immunity?)

    There are some strong arguments against immunity, starting with the basic principle that no one should be above the law. If these companies engaged in illegal spying, they should be held accountable. Critics of immunity also argue that if the companies are given immunity in advance, we will never learn what kind of illegal activity they engaged in.

    If President Bush had engaged these real arguments against telecom immunity, he could have added to the debate. But instead, he lumped everyone who opposes telecom immunity in the general category of those who would weaken the nation’s “ability to track terrorist threats” and put “our citizens” in “greater danger.”

    Well said. A fine complement to the video, Slashdot piece, technical report, and Bruce Schneier’s excellent Wired piece dissecting the misleading “tradeoff” between security and privacy.

    Reply
  4. jon Avatar
    jon

    My Facebook feed:

    me toasting with a glass of red wine, and text saying 'Jon is watching the country recover its civil liberties and enjoying every moment of it!' and a URL

    (The link is back to this thread.)

    Reply
  5. jon Avatar
    jon

    And continuing on the civil liberties theme: Habeas Lawyers for Obama.

    The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration’s attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues “in his bones.”

    And here’s something I didn’t know:

    When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration’s efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us.

    Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.

    The comment thread on MyDD is interesting as well, with a great anecdote about Obama calling up his former colleague Cass Sunstein and disagreeing with a position he had taken about the NSA!

    I’m impressed. Combine this with his support for an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination act and repeal of DOMA and Obama is shaping up to be the strongest presidential candidate on civil liberties in a very long time …

    Update on 1/31, surfing during the debate: Al Giordano’s The Field covers Ted Kennedy’s appearance on El Piolín (the most popular show in the US, and huge in Southern California), and quotes Teddy as saying “Only two senators marched for immigrant rights on May 1, 2006, one in Washington and the other in Chicago. I marched in Washington and Barack Obama marched in Chicago. He was not afraid to stand up when others wouldn’t…. I’m committed to coming back on the immigration bill and Barack Obama will be with me. He is the one candidate who has said that he can do this in his first term.” Lengthy thread on Kos, too.

    Reply
  6. jon Avatar
    jon

    Back on the issue of warrantless searches, the blogosphere is playing a huge role here. As well as the high-profile TPMmuckraker and Threat Level, and a Daily Kos diary entry that just got ‘rescued’ to the front page, there are also locally-focused blogs that wind up connecting nationally. Check out Show Me Progress’ action alert thanking Missourians and Sen. McCaskill for her courageous vote on Monday, and reminding everybody that the job’s not done — helpfully providing phone, fax, and addresses. There’s a comment “thanks for this great work from New Jersey” and a link out to Blue Jersey. How long till a similar post, customized for New Jersey’s congresspeople, is up on that site?

    And there’s a lot of dialog going on. Check out Courage Campaign’s page, with a criticism of the Feinstein/Specter amendments — and a quick and detailed response from Scott Garber, Senator Feinstein’s Communication Director.

    Reply
  7. jon Avatar
    jon

    From mcjoan on Daily Kos: Dems didn’t cave!: five amendments will get a simple majority vote, including immunity, sequestration, and bulk collection, and additionally “they agreed to accept as part of the base bill Sen. Feingold’s amendment that would require that Congress be given timely access to FISA Court pleadings, opinions, and decisions that contain significant interpretations of law, retroactive five years.”

    Reply
  8. jon Avatar
    jon

    Here’s Feingold’s statement.

    mcjoan’s Time to lead on Daily Kos has Obama and Clinton’s statements, and asks whether or not they’ll be in DC for Monday’s votes.

    Reply
  9. jon Avatar
    jon

    I started a thread on Will Obama and Clinton vote on the surveillance bill on Monday? on the Facebook Barack Obama discussion board. Everybody seems to be assuming the answer is no; it seems to me that either or both of the candidates might realize the value of being on the floor in an important vote of civil liberties the day before Super Tuesday….

    Reply
  10. jon Avatar
    jon

    Richard Clarke, former Homeland Security Advisor, weighs in with Bush legacy: Setting a standard in fear-mongering in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

    OWhen I left the Bush administration in 2003, it was clear to me that its strategy for defeating terrorism was leaving our nation more vulnerable and our people in a perilous place. Not only did its policies misappropriate resources, weaken the moral standing of America, and threaten long-standing legal and constitutional provisions, but the president also employed misleading and reckless rhetoric to perpetuate his agenda.

    This week’s State of the Union proved nothing has changed.

    Besides overstating successes in Afghanistan, painting a rosy future for Iraq, and touting unfinished domestic objectives, he again used his favorite tactic – fear – as a tool to scare Congress and the American people. On one issue in particular – FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) – the president misconstrued the truth and manipulated the facts.

    Discussion on Kos.

    Reply
  11. Liminal states » Archive » Choosing hope over fear: Obama ‘08

    […] liberties: Obama’s good — not perfect, but better than any president we’ve ever had. Hillary Clinton, on the […]

    Reply
  12. jon Avatar
    jon

    The title of Ari Melber’s Will the Senate OK More Bush Spying? asks the $64,000 question. It’s a pretty clear choice:

    This week Americans face a profound choice–and it has nothing to do with the presidential election.

    The Senate is about to vote on legislation, favored by President Bush, to strip American courts of their authority to supervise massive government surveillance. The RESTORE Act sidelines the US intelligence court, established by a 1978 law, and grants Bush new spying powers. Under the proposal, the Administration merely needs to “certify” it will not abuse them.

    Of course, Bush already has abused his spying powers. He conceded in 2005 that the Administration conducted massive surveillance without the warrants required by law. A judge resigned in protest; Bush’s former attorney general, his deputy attorney general and the FBI director also threatened to resign; and one federal court found the warrantless spying illegal.

    Yet the Senate’s legislation fails to confront that history.

    The vote has been pushed back. Does this make it possible for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to show up, both to cast their own votes and try to persuade their colleagues?

    We shall see …

    Reply
  13. jon Avatar
    jon

    Final votes were today. Barack Obama voted against telecom immunity — as did Harry Reid and 29 other Democrats. John McCain along with every single Republican Senator, Joe Lieberman, and 19 Democrats voted for.

    More here.

    Reply
  14. Aleda Avatar
    Aleda

    Thanks for writing this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *