Saturday, May 13, 2006

I'm no lawyer, but...

Inspired by a recent article in the L.A. Times, here's the relevant text of the ECPA-amended US Code Title 18:
Section 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

(a) Prohibitions. - Except as provided in subsection (b) -
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person
or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic
storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to
the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity
the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained
on that service -
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
transmission from (or created by means of computer processing
of communications received by means of electronic transmission
from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
communications for purposes of providing any services other
than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic
communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a
record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or
customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any
governmental entity.
(b) Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
communication -
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication
or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or
2703 of this title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee
or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in
the case of remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are
used to forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service;
(6) to a law enforcement agency -
(A) if the contents -
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider;
and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990; or
(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
emergency.
(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such
service (not including the contents of communications covered by
subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)) -
(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information; or
(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.
I don't see anything in here that says "when the President decides to go on a terrorist hunt."

Survey says...

Hmmm, it looks like Newsweek took a poll of their own:
According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.
That's what I'm talking about!

Who are the good guys?

According to the WaPo:
Two wireless companies -- Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA Inc. -- flatly said they had not taken part in the NSA program. Internet companies Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AOL also said they had not provided mass information to the government.
But it's the earlier part of the article that creeps me out:
"I wish I could say I was bothered by it but I'm not," said Jacques Domenge, a 28-year-old Potomac man who visited a Cingular Wireless store in Rockville yesterday to replace a stolen phone.

"If it's only done to protect people and find patterns that help the government find terrorists -- I don't think it will work, by the way, but let's say it will -- then I am all for it," he said, adding that he had no problems with Cingular -- or any other phone company -- turning over records.
So if it's only done to protect people and help the government find terrorists, which he acknowledges wouldn't work, he's all for it. Sounds almost a little too hypothetical to be believed. Maybe it's because I can almost picture him fumbling around is his pocket for his green card, nervously caressing the edges of the shiny plastic, hoping that the guy asking these questions aren't going to suddenly through him into an unmarked van and ship him back to Quebec or France.

And of course, to reinforce that the Frenchman on the street is perfectly in line to say such things:
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday, 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, including 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
Nevermind the question doesn't ask whether it would be acceptable if it were also illegal. Don't believe me? Here's the question:
45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

------- Acceptable ------ ----- Unacceptable ------ No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin.
5/11/06 63 41 22 35 11 24 2
Never mind that it's the government's claim that it doesn't listen to or record the conversations. Didn't include that in the question, did they? If you mentioned this might also be illegal, do you suppose the respondents would still be in favor of it?

I remember a few short months ago the government was insisting (not swearing, thank you Sen. Specter) it didn't do what the other day it conceded it's doing. So why should I believe them when they claim they aren't using this information for something other than tracking down terrists?

Here's another question for you: How long do you think they're going to hold onto this stuff? A week? A month? Until we win the endless War on Terra™? They will keep this stuff forever, and I guarantee you that with this bunch, even a court order demanding they destroy it will be ignored. Some CompUSA will suddenly find itself out of disk drives while they backup the whole mess. Two weeks after that, you'll probably be able to buy it on the streets of Baghdad and Islamabad.

I'm going to keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. The issue here is not whether we want to fight the terrists. I think it's relatively safe to say that we're all in favor of trying to stop terrists blah, blah, blah, but if we end up turning this country into a police state, what's the frickin' point? Because then you're saying America isn't about the Freedom™, it's really about the goodies we can have.

It's very simple:
Obey the law, Mr. President.
If you don't like the law, get your rubber-stamp Congress to write you a nice shiny one.

Before you nominate him for sainthood...

CEO of Qwest is under indictment:

Yesterday, Mr. Nacchio's image took another turn. His lawyer, Herbert J. Stern, said that Mr. Nacchio refused to provide the National Security Agency with access to private telephone records of Qwest customers, apparently the lone holdout among the major phone companies.

With that statement, Mr. Nacchio, who is under indictment for insider trading, has been instantly recast as a champion of the Fourth Amendment and a friend of the man on the street.

[snip...]

Prosecutors have asserted that he failed to tell investors about warnings from his managers that the company's financial forecasts were too upbeat, yet he sold 2.5 million shares of Qwest stock in early 2001 that netted $100 million.

Mr. Nacchio, however, is expected to argue that he was optimistic about Qwest's prospects because the company was bidding for secret government contracts and stood a good chance of winning them.

So why would the next in a long line of Kenny Boys suddenly stick his head up?
"You have to wonder why he wants to be in the limelight," said John Hemann, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius and a member of the Justice Department's Enron Task Force. "You take an issue where the wind is blowing the right way and you put yourself on the right side of it by saying 'I was looking out for the little guy.' This is going to play huge in Denver."
Fair enough. Then I guess we have you DOJ guys to thank for our finding out which telecoms told the government to take a flying leap:
A spokesman for Qwest, Robert Toevs, declined to discuss anything to do with security issues or the statement by Mr. Nacchio's lawyer.
Get used to the following phrase: "declined to discuss anything to do with security issues," because we are gonna hear it a lot in the next few years.

Friday, May 12, 2006

I write letters

Dear Cingular:
Q2:Please enter your phone question below:
A2: A recent USAToday article indicated that ATT, Verizon, and BellSouth
turned over to the NSA their databases of calling information regarding
their customers.
I am deeply concerned about the possibility that Cingular was involved
in this unethical and possibly illegal transaction.
If Cingular did not turn over information to government agencies, I
would like some reassurance that you will not at some future time accede
to government demands for personal information without a warrant or my
consent.
Two clicks of the form email button:
Dear ...

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail Cingular Wireless regarding
protecting your personal information. I am happy to help you with your
inquiry.

Protecting customer information is of the utmost priority to Cingular.
We have a variety of measures in place to protect unauthorized access to
customer information, and we also train our customer care
representatives to be alert for anyone who tries to improperly coax
information out of them.

While the above refers to individuals that attempt to access the
information on your account without authorization, Cingular Wireless
does not comment on national security matters. We are committed to
protecting customer privacy, and we assist law enforcement in strict
accordance with the law.

I hope that the information provided has been helpful and has resolved
all of your questions. If you need further assistance, feel free to
reply to this e-mail or contact customer service at 1-800-331-0500 or
611 from your Cingular Wireless phone.

I encourage you to visit our web site (www.cingular.com) often to view
current and previous monthly statements, make payments and to shop for
new product and service offerings. Thank you for allowing Cingular
Wireless to serve as your wireless company. We will do our best to
ensure that your wireless experience is a success.

Sincerely,

Cindy Knight
Cingular Wireless
Online Customer Care Professional
That would be "yes." and "f--- you."

One nuclear option off the table

Well, that's just peachy:
Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President
By Charles Babington
Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.
Yes, because it is important to choke off the Republicans rallying cries, as opposed to creating any for Democrats, or holding the Preznit accountable...
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
Let me get this straight. Last I checked, nuking Iran isn't "off the table," for the Prezit, so is it gonna kill her to at least leave impeachment "on the table?"
Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi, saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals.
Which activists?
Oh yes, the mythical "Democratic activists." Must be the same ones that told Russ Feingold to jump in the lake with his censure resolution.
But for some reason, nobody wants to provide names. Funny.
Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.
Oh he does, does he? Did Chuck bother to get a quote from Conyers?

When are we gonna get there?

From Bob Park's What's New (05/12/06):
3. SPACE: THE ONLY THING IN NASA THAT STILL GOES UP IS THE COST.
Michael Griffin told his science advisory committee this week
that he could not keep the commitment he made a year ago not to
shift money from science to human space flight. I wasn't on the
committee, but I tried to imagine how it might have gone if I had
been.

MG: The problem is the ISS.
RP: What problem?
MG: We have to finish it by 2010.
RP: Why is that a problem?
MG: Because the shuttle doesn't work.
RP: If we fix the shuttle and finish the ISS, what do we do next?
MG: We drop the ISS in the ocean.
RP: Why don't we do that now?
MG: Because we must honor our commitment to our ISS partners first.
RP: But what about
your commitment to space science?
MG: That will have to wait until we get back from Mars.
RP: We're going to Mars?
MG: When we get back from the moon.
RP: We're going to the moon?
MG: Just as soon as we build a new spacecraft.
RP: What's holding that up?
MG: The problem is the ISS.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Uh, is thing on?

Testing...
1...
2...
3...