US electronic surveillance bill trapped in political limbo
The fight turns to Google
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
A controversial bill to expand the government's electronic surveillance authority has once again been delayed from coming to the floor of the House of Representatives as politicians wrangle over the granting immunity to AT&T and other telecommunications companies.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he hoped to finish work to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, by the end of this week or the beginning of next, according to news reports. He said disagreements among Democratic lawmakers remain about whether retroactive immunity should be given to telecom companies that acquiesced to wiretapping demands even though they weren't accompanied by a court order.
According to news reports, moderate and conservative democrats have backed a plan already passed by the Senate to grant the after-the-fact immunity provision, but more liberal representatives are pushing to strip the bill of those provisions.
President Bush and other Republicans have repeatedly castigated the House for failing to take up the Bill more than three weeks after it was passed by the Senate. They argue the delay is compromising national security by preventing investigators from carrying out surveillance on potential terrorists.
Meanwhile, bloggers have jumped on comments made earlier this week by a top Department of Justice official to argue that the real intent of FISA supporters is to obtain the ability to intercept email.
During a breakfast on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to this article in The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein complained that under current rules many emails and other electronic communications are off limits because "you don't know where the recipient is going to be."
Up until then, the FISA debate centered generally around the legality of eavesdropping on telephone calls between foreigners and specifically whether a warrant was necessary when the cables connecting the parties happened to pass through the US.
Wainstein seemed to be arguing that the real concern among FISA supporters is the ability to legally intercept foreign-to-foreign emails if one of the parties happens to pick up one of the messages while in US territory.
"What this means, of course, is that while the public outcry has been focused on AT&T, it should have included a few other firms, including perhaps Microsoft, Yahoo and Google," CNET blogger Chris Soghoian argued here. ®
COMMENTS
Those kooky but nasty terror guys...
...must be laughing so loud!
Ex Post Facto
Will the US Constitution allow removing somebody's right to privacy retroactively or is its loss regarded as acceptable collateral damage from the Global War of Terror?
Can't pardon a 'non crime'
As it happens, the immunity is against civil suits for privacy infringement, which a pardon wouldn't affect. They are for criminal offenses (how about 'aiding and abetting'?).
Besides, the Govt took the amusing position that fact of whether or not the intercepts took place is in itself a state secret :-(
From my point of view enabling companies to assist the 'Guardians of Freedom' in committing crimes is a real bad idea. There is enough collusion and 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' as it is. Worse there is general criminal immunity for acts committed in office and impeachment is all but impossible. (perhaps 'judge not, lest you be judged' ;-) )
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud based data management
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
