House of Eratosthenes

This week President Bush said something interesting about the democrats who are resisting an extension to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“I suspect they see a financial gravy train,” Bush said, referring to lawyers pursuing class-action lawsuits against telephone companies who have turned over information to the government.

One indicator that he might be right about that, is that this isn’t the first time we’ve been arguing about this electronic surveillance. The most recent big ol’ melee occurred in early 2006 when former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez went up to the hill to testify about it, at which time the Old Gray Lady summarized things in that cool, clear-headed, balanced way she has…

Spying on Ordinary Americans
Published: January 18, 2006

In times of extreme fear, American leaders have sometimes scrapped civil liberties in the name of civil protection. It’s only later that the country can see that the choice was a false one and that citizens’ rights were sacrificed to carry out extreme measures that were at best useless and at worst counterproductive. There are enough examples of this in American history – the Alien and Sedition Acts and the World War II internment camps both come to mind – that the lesson should be woven into the nation’s fabric. But it’s hard to think of a more graphic example than President Bush’s secret program of spying on Americans.

I like that headline the best.

Point is, I find it strange that the civil-protection battleground has been left untrampled in this issue until the second month of 2008. That just reeks of quid pro quo, doesn’t it? Okay Mister President, we’ll help you gut the “civil liberties” of “ordinary Americans” like a big bloated fish, just pay us back by opening a hunting season for our friends the trial lawyers.

Because you know what world we democrats live in, Mister President. You know litigation is the one industry we adore. You know these are the “corporations” that, in our world, aren’t “greedy.”

But maybe I’m reading something into it. Maybe there’s a good reason why, in 2006, spying on a cell phone conversation was just-plain-wrong, don’t-do-it, If We Let This Happen The Terrorists Have Already Won — and in 2008 it has nothing to do with principle, instead it’s all about tral lawyers collecting pelts. Maybe there’s a perfectly legitimate explanation.

Or maybe not —

As Congress debates giving immunity to phone companies that assisted the government in tracking terrorist communications, trial lawyers prosecuting those phone companies have poured money into the coffers of Democratic senators, representatives and causes.

Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.

All of the trial lawyers combined only contributed $4,250 to Republicans in comparison. Those contributions were made to: Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), Sen. Mel Martinez, and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).

One maxed-out lawyer donor, Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats. In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns.

Bergman’s law firm’s website says he also specializes in “identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.” In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm’s asbestos victim clients.

I think it’s high time we had a serious debating or reckoning about what exactly an “Ordinary American” is. If I’m born in Pakistan to a Jordanian father and a Palestinian mother, grow up in Saudi Arabia, get recruited by Al Qaeda, work my way up in the structure to the point where Osama bin Laden trusts me to do some plotting with other terrorist officers over a cell phone which, while I’m using it in Syria, sends some signals over a network where American telecommunications interests could reveal a record of my calls to the CIA — maybe not getting sued for it — um…does that make me an “Ordinary American” even though I’ve never personally been to America?

It sounds like that should be off-topic from what the squabbling is about. But I don’t see anyone stepping up and saying that.

It seems what they want me to think, is that my civil liberties are in peril. Because Sprint (my carrier) might clue someone in on my text messages and my phone calls. If this is done, I’m told, life will become dreary and gray just like in that 1984 commercial before the girl throws the hammer into the movie screen.

That argument has one glaring problem that is terminal to it. Like all other non-stupid people, I don’t see the cell phone that way. I see it as a public venue. When I send a text message, I see it as a wad of bytes meandering toward someone who is familiar by way of a gazillion and one complete strangers who are not.

Nobody with a reputation worth defending has told me a cell phone call or a text message is equivalent to a face-to-face sitdown in a soundproof, empty room. Not one single time. And so when my sweetie and I are both working our asses off and I need to schedule a “date” by a text message, I get coy. I hint at things. I imply. I wink. And if it’s the day after and the date went extremely well, I save it until I get home. I don’t do pillow talk by way of text message.

For these reasons, I’m resistant to the people who are legitimately concerned about Verizon or Cingular releasing their records to the CIA. Yes, I do think they have something to hide. And as far as the people who are just worked up into a lather about the Government spying on their “private” conversations, I don’t think they’re “ordinary” either.

I think they lack common sense.

Because a genuinely “private” conversation doesn’t belong there.

Trial Lawyers Back Democrats in Fight Against FISA…

Just one more thing the media glosses over in framing the Republicans as the bad guys.
……
- Webloggin | 03/01/2008 @ 11:57
Morgan, I know you’re in IT (or were, at any rate), so your statement of “meandering by a gazillion and one strangers” is a little odd. That message, while certainly interceptable by anyone with access and sufficient technology, is nonetheless isolated from the average user of the cell network. Telephone calls were originally (and for the most part still are) circuit-switched communication, where the content of the connection were physically isolated from other users of the network. This sets a precedent, and an expectation, of how and why phones are used.

Here’s something else: every last packet of your IP-based communication (and cell conversations in addition) gets scanned by the US government as part of that wiretapping program. The common counter to this claim is usually “the computer hardware to do that would just cost too much.” Never underestimate the government’s ability to spend money. The ballpark figures I’ve seen range between $20 billion to $200 billion. That’s well within the government’s budget. We’ve spent six to sixty times that on the Iraq war to date. The wiretap program is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Legislation already on the books to permit such emergency investigation seems to be glossed over completely; the point of all this is to prevent abuse by the system. Heck, the evidence found in the ‘tap could be used to make a case for the warrant after the fact. If not, the evidence is discarded completely. Now, however, that evidence gets taken, sealed as “sekrit OMG” and nobody involved, even the person on whom charges were placed, is allowed to talk about it. Approved by a secret court, to which nobody has access, by evidence that nobody’s allowed to review, can send a citizen to a secret prison where they will be denied every last right explicitly stated in the Constitution, including your right to continue existing. What happens when someone decides they don’t like you and fabricates no end of evidence to make you disappear? Sure, we’ve heard of no such thing, but in the face of such a grievous violation, the perpetrators have a great vested interest in keeping such things quiet. Would we have heard about it at all if it actually did happen?

As to the “if you’re innocent, what do you have to hide” mindset, that’s not how justice is supposed to work in this country. If I’m innocent, why do you have to pry into my life? There are plenty of things in this existence that are perfectly legal, but socially unacceptable in certain circles. The possibility of blackmail goes through the roof when there’s no oversight, which, near as I can tell, is the current state of affairs WRT the wiretap program. How is the citizenry to keep watch over it’s government when they’re barred by law from doing so? Such a thing cuts to the heart of a government of, by, and for the people.
- dcshiderly | 03/02/2008 @ 04:13
As to the “if you’re innocent, what do you have to hide” mindset, that’s not how justice is supposed to work in this country.

Leaving untouched the question about how incredibly cliched this has become for the time being, we should take a look at how well this passes scrutiny. I submit that it does not.

We do have a right to privacy and it works quite well, pretty much the same way whether you’re constructing a dirty bomb or whether you’re flopping your naughty bits around in public. Skateboarding down the street wearing nothing but a smile — not okay; your apartment balcony — might be alright; in your living room — fine. If there’s an expectation of privacy you have privacy. It has to do with the setting.

My point is that the cellular network is essentially public. And yes, I say that as an IT guy.

Yes, there should be an expectation — your online bank account is “public” the same way, but there are certain rules in place, things people have to sign before they can work on that equipment. But a responsible citizen regards a service venue as a public one, until he has a privacy policy in hand stating the opposite. Cell phones are public.

I would further add that my analogy SHOULD break down, even though it doesn’t: I can get hurt if you construct a dirty bomb in the privacy of your living room, but nothing’s gonna happen to anyone if you’re just dangling your dingaling.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2008 @ 09:10
The difference is it’s not illegal to “dangle” in the privacy of your own home, but constructing a radioactive explosive device with the intent to kill hundreds is. There’s no possible way for others to come to physical harm if I walk around naked in my house. These two examples do not follow.

The bank account issue is different. Online bank accounts aren’t “public” in the way you describe the cell network as “public” unless you have the $100K in computer time necessary to crack 128-bit RSA. Have you ever had to give verification information over the phone? What if that line is tapped? How would you know? You wouldn’t, until an unscrupulous individual relieved you of your life savings. Do you have a reasonable expectation that your home phone is secure from prying eyes? The bank obviously thinks so, and by extension so should you.

This entire though experiment still doesn’t invalidate the fact that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I’m willing to grant that circumstances today sometimes require minor end runs, but the FISA provisions aren’t beyond the scope of the Fourth. The evidence gathered in this way is brought public at the time of trial, and the warrant issued still requires that the evidence meet the probable cause provision.
- dcshiderly | 03/02/2008 @ 20:54

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File LVISaturday, March 1st, 2008

Memo For File LVI
Saturday, March 1st, 2008