Heckuva job, Barry!
By Thoreau
In today’s LA Times, there’s an excellent article on why this gross expansion of wiretap power will hamper the functioning of whatever watchdog power remains in the media:
The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.
What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man’s story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it away and a free press withers and dies.
This was an entirely predictable consequence of expanded surveillance powers (a consequence of things that happened long before this week), and I suspect that it was even an intended consequence. Any journalist, businessman, human rights activist, academic, or other person trying to work in politically sensitive areas will be unable to assure those that he works with that his phone is not tapped.
(Thread title courtesy of Jason Sonenshein.)
Comment by wjw —
July 11, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Is there any hope the Supreme Court could strike down this FISA garbage as unconstitutional should they ever have the chance to? If so, somebody needs to file suit pronto.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
July 11, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
To be fair, you never really could be sure your phones weren’t being tapped.
But in any case, I think we’ll see an explosion in the demand and use of encryption for communication. Sure, encrypted messages can be cracked at some point, but it takes a lot of time and effort if you’re using quality security software.
Then all the government has is proof that you talked to someone, no proof of what you said.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
July 11, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
wjw,
The ACLU has already filed a suit doing exactly that.
And the EFF is going to file a suit challenging telecom immunity.
Comment by joe —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Yes, this is clearly Barack Obama’s fault. Way to stick it to the man, thoreau.
Maybe, if you’re really effective, you can convince enough people of his worthlessness that somebody who whole-heartedly supports these practices will win. Woo hoo!
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
I’m not blaming him for the passage of the bill. I’m saying that his support for this bill is an odious sign of where he stands.
But if we don’t elect a guy who voted for this bill, and put him in the White House where he can work with Congressional leaders who have let all of these things happen, then we might wind up with a President who supports these things and will steamroll the Congressional leaders who let these things happen.
Comment by joe —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Really, his vote on this one bill, the passage of which is a foregone conclusion, is enough for you to determine that he is indistinguishable from John McCain on civil liberties?
Sure, that’s reasonable.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
Congresspeople supporting FISA doesn’t make stuff like this happen. But Joe, Congresspeople who support FISA have committed themselves to making sure such things will keep happening. Courts don’t use their speeches, courts use the text of bills signed into law. And the text says, “Rockwell was right”.
(And at that, “Is my phone tapped?” is or is becoming an obsolete question. Modern means sweep everything in range.)
Comment by joe —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Bruce,
His speeches and his votes against telecom immunity, as well as a great deal of other items in his record, convince me that the laws he sponsors and pushes for as president will be considerably better than those McSame would sponsor and push for.
You’re right, laws matter. If you don’t think there will be any difference in the legislation that the presidential bully pulpit is used to support under President Obama vs. President McCain, then I don’t think you’ve been paying attention.
Comment by KCinDC —
July 11, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Then all the government has is proof that you talked to someone, no proof of what you said.
Often the identity of the person talking to the journalist, human rights activist, etc., is at least as important than what is said.
But I’m not sure how much less sure we are now that our phones aren’t being tapped.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein —
July 12, 2008 @ 5:56 am
Thanks, Thoreau, for using my comment as a blog title. Thanks even more for giving me credit!