A “What’s Good for the Goose…” News Sandwich

According to The Guardian, the NSA responded Saturday to a request from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont about the NSA’s activities with respect to members of Congress. In its statement, the NSA implied that it monitors the communications of Members of Congress as it does any other American. Sanders asked whether the NSA “spied” on Members of Congress, defining “spying” as “gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business.” The NSA responded, in part, that “Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons.” In other words, Members of Congress have no privacy, either.

Do you think now we might see some legislative action on the issue of the third-party doctrine? Yes, normally I would say this story is bad news, because having a security agency spying on members of the legislative branch might interfere with our system of checks and balances. But in today’s context I’m more interested in seeing a fire lit under the feet of our legislators.

(For my argument as to why and how we should eliminate the third-party doctrine, check out “Don’t Tread on My Metadata” at PJ Media.)

Maybe this revelation by the NSA will motivate one of our better politicians on the issue of privacy, Senator Rand Paul, to get behind the push to give some sort of clemency to Edward Snowden. Again, according to The Guardian, while Paul has spoken in a sympathetic manner about Snowden, he has stopped short of calling for any sort of leniency or clemency. To me that’s disappointing, especially given the fact that Snowden’s revelations are making possible Paul’s class-action lawsuit against the NSA, something that will no doubt be a big fundraiser for his campaign.

What is also disappointing is that there is nothing about the substance of the lawsuit on his site, just a form to fill out. I want to know what theory will be used to challenge the NSA’s spying activities. I have called and emailed Senator Paul’s staff to try to get something more specific than Paul’s framing of the issue during last Friday’s interview: “whether or not constitutionally you can have a single warrant apply to millions of people.” Even that vague framing of the issue may be enough to prompt the Court to reconsider the third-party doctrine, but it would be better if the issue were put to the Court directly.

The good news is that, should the Court eventually do the right thing and eliminate the third-party doctrine, technology is already available that will allow the NSA to do its job just fine without indiscriminate collection of bulk metadata. Matt Blaze, a security expert writing for The Guardian, says that the NSA’s recently revealed “Tailored Access Operations,” which “scare the daylights out of [him],” will allow the NSA to get the information they need to protect national security without routine “backdoor access” to our personal data. Writes Blaze, “as well as TAO works (and it appears to work quite well indeed), they can’t deploy it against all of us – or even most of us.”

But I bet they could deploy it against all Members of Congress 😉

Enjoying News Sandwich? If so, please share via email, social media, etc. Thanks!

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

A (Media + Tech Industry) vs Govt. News Sandwich

I am hopeful that in 2014 we will see the fruits of Edward Snowden’s efforts to educate the public about the abuses of government surveillance. Yesterday the NYT Editorial Board published a piece titled, significantly, “Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower”. The editorial’s purpose is to argue in support of Snowden being given a chance to return to the U.S. without facing a lengthy—and perhaps not any—prison sentence.

Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.

Hear, hear!

The editorial summarizes the abuses and crimes revealed by Snowden, many of which have yet to be addressed by our government. The Board also provides further evidence for a point that I’ve been making on my show for some time: that Snowden had no realistic alternative available to him, given that his goal was to inform us and the world about our government’s violation of our rights. On my show, I’ve been referring to former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s remark that “all three branches of government have signed off” on what the N.S.A. is doing. If that’s really true, I argued, then Snowden did the right thing. The NYT Editorial Board buttresses the argument, pointing out that an executive order that Obama has touted as providing protection for whistle-blowers does not apply to contractors like Snowden, only to intelligence personnel. (I wonder if that executive order says anything about a whistle-blower’s email being hacked and deleted.) In addition, the Board noted, Snowden told The Washington Post that he had twice reported the abuses to his superiors, and that the complaints were ignored. The entire editorial is worth a read.

Seeing that the NYT is on the right side in the issue of pervasive government surveillance is heartening, especially in light of the almost continuous revelations about the NSA’s activities. Most recently, Der Spiegel revealed that the NSA was developing software that, as summarized by The Guardian, “would allow it to remotely retrieve virtually all the information on an iPhone including text messages, photos, contacts, location, voice mail and live calls.”

Apple not only denied knowledge of or involvement with this program, it also issued a strongly worded statement which reads, in part:

Whenever we hear about attempts to undermine Apple’s industry-leading security, we thoroughly investigate and take appropriate steps to protect our customers. We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them.

If you read that really quickly, you can imagine that Apple is calling the NSA “malicious hackers,” which is something that I would call them. Still, it’s great to see Apple saying that it pledges to “defend [its] customers from security attacks,” even when those attacks come from our own government.

Happy New Year, everyone!

6 Comments

Filed under Politics, Technology

A Lightbulb Ban News Sandwich

eulightbulbbanAccording to a recent gallup poll, 72% say that big government, as opposed to big business (21%) or big labor (5%), “will be the biggest threat to the country in the future.” Of course I’d prefer that the poll question refer to the scope of government, with the same result, but it nonetheless seems that people are beginning to recognize what Ayn Rand knew decades ago:

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.

What is it that is making people wake up to the dangers of a rights-violating government? Perhaps it’s the “glitch”-ridden Obamacare takeover of the healthcare industry, along with the creepy suggestions coming from on high that we discuss Obamacare with our families and friends during holiday gatherings. Or maybe it’s the fact that government seems to be trying to control more and more aspects of our lives as the years go on.

Take the ban on incandescent light bulbs. (Anthem, anyone?) I hadn’t done much research on this, so I thought it would prohibit only higher-wattage bulbs, and that I’d still be able to get the 40- and 60-watt bulbs I like to use in various places in my home. Then I learned recently that, starting January 1, “it will become illegal for American businesses to either manufacture or import the old-style bulbs.” After reading about my Facebook friends stocking up on the bulbs, I went to Amazon, hoping to order a bunch for a semi-reasonable price. And in fact the other day I placed an order for a bunch of the 40-watt, globe-shaped bulbs I like to use above the bathroom mirror. I even gave myself a virtual pat on the back after clicking “place order,” congratulating myself for my resourcefulness. And then this arrived in my inbox this morning:

Hello,

Due to a lack of availability, we will not be able to obtain the following item(s) from your order:

“GE Lighting 48694 Reveal 40-watt 265-Lumen G25 Light Bulb with Medium Base, 6-Pack”

We’ve canceled the item(s) and apologize for the inconvenience. If you see a charge for the canceled item, we will refund you within 1-2 business days.

Ugh. Thanks, George W. Bush.

Thankfully Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) has done the heavy lifting, researching the legal alternatives we now have to the traditional incandescent bulbs. He says he’s as picky about the quality of light as I am and assures his readers that one brand of LED bulbs provides light comparable to my beloved Reveal incandescents. To read which type he recommends, go read his blog post here. The LEDs will apparently save us money on our electric bills, if that’s any consolation.

4 Comments

Filed under Politics