Bush Admin. Plans Mandatory Government Internet Monitoring

an essential issue (at least in my mind) is that the US govt has a pretty nasty record when it comes to tracking individuals, J. Edgar used his FBI as his own personal info gathering system in order to stay in power, we don't really have a system for protecting the information that is gathered because, as always, its a "people" system in the last analysis. the only saving grace is the totaly volume that would have to be monitored, however if an individual was targeted he would have no defense.

Thank you Roger.

I'll add a little. The NSA is separate from the functions of the CIA, FBI and the new Homeland Security and does not report to any of those agencies. It conducts what they call SIGINT (signals intelligence) by capturing and analysing communications, encrypted and otherwise.

Huge amounts of raw data are sifted for key words, phrases, etc or possible encryption and analysed by experts in communications, defense and languages - they claim to be the biggest employer of mathematicians on the planet. Australia's claim to fame in this is the provision of various collecting sites in W.A., Qld and Pine Gap.


http://www.nsa.gov/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/503224.stm

Looks like the idea has been quashed for at least another year. From today's CNN story on the US Budget Authorization bill passed by the Congress:

"It also voted to block funding for a Pentagon project that would scour a wide range of computer databases for terrorist threats. The so-called Total Information Awareness program would get no money until the Pentagon explains the program and assesses its impact on civil liberties."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/congress.spending.reut/index.html

BTW, Mr. Stillwater, the NSA is a part of the US Dept. Of Defense.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-congress-privacy.html

..."The Senate measure requires the Pentagon to report to Congress on the goals of the program within 60 days of the bill's final passage, including recommendations from the Attorney General on minimizing the impact on civil liberties.

The measure also would keep the Pentagon from deploying the program or transferring it to another department, such as the FBI or the new Homeland Security department, without congressional authorization."


But these limitations would not apply if the deployment or transfer of technology was being made for lawful foreign intelligence activities or U.S. military operations outside the United States.

Wyden said there had to be exceptions for national security. ``There has got to be congressional approval to deploy these technologies, so this information doesn't get circulated indiscriminately all over government,'' he said.

``But in striking the balance, when talking about matters of national security, those matters can go forward,'' he said.

The president can't circumvent this decision ?

The Congress authorizes the money. The President can't spend money where the Congress hasn't authorized it so in effect, no, he can't unless he can somehow get the software developed, the computers delivered and people to run the whole show without any cost.

The President can't shuffle money into that program from another. That would exceed his Constitutional authority.

fishin' thanks.
I ask because in our news was stated that the president can circumvent it (in consideration of national security).



http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2002/2003123C23.html

...The Wyden amendment does contain a Presidential waiver provision allowing spending to move forward if and only if the President certifies that submitting such the report required by the Wyden amendment is not possible, or that stopping research and development for TIA would endanger national security. Even if the President submits such a waiver, Congress must still give final approval for any deployment or implementation of any technology developed by TIA."

I think "circumvent" may be being used incorrectly here. "circumvent" would usually mean "get around the intended purpose by means not expressly authorized".

The amendment halts any funding until the privacy concerns of the Congress are satiisfied but it does contain the provision "Under the Wyden Amendment, no funds may be obligated for the TIA program unless the Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, and Director of Central Intelligence provide a detailed report on their plans within 60 days of the Wyden proposal becoming law."

So the President could have this report delivered to the Congress within 60 days and then funding would be restored. (If they wait longer than 60 days they are out of luck until next year's Defense spending bill comes around.). The provision also exists for the waiver if the Administration can justify it (maybe they can, maybe they can't.. I don't know.). That would allow the Research and Development of the system but not any actual use. The Congress withheld the right to approve/disapprove the actual deployment and use for a later date.

But neither of those is "circumventing" the amendment. Both instances would be complying with the legislation as it is written passed.

I hope I didn't make that any more confusing..

Sorry, fishin' - the President doesn't have to OK the funds - he just has to OK the INTENT to do something. In fact the LESS he knows about the actual nuts'n'bolts the better off he is.

Consider this 'hypothetical', the US wants some hostages released. The Pentagon 'finds' some loose funds by selling arms to this hostile state. The money is then diverted to 'freedom fighters' that happen to be the apple of the President's eye. This is all arranged by a Lieutent-Col. in the US Marines, who then destroys all the evidence and lies to the Congress. No evidence, Col. X off the hook. President Z then says that his administration 'forget' to have a foreign policy - off the hook for him too. Director M of the CIA that oversaw the whole operation - bigger and better things. Citizens of country J - ruined economy, rightwing terror and shallow graves. Sort of stuff Tom Clancy would dream up, hey??

Mr. Stillwater- I must be a psychic- before I read your last line, I was thinking of the same thing, Truth IS sometimes stranger than fiction!

I was referring only to "legal" operation of the government. There are any number of illegal things that could be done but, as I stated, he doesn't have any Constitutional authority to do those and neither do any of the executive agancies that operate under him.

As you may recall there where years of hearings when that little tin-soldier went off and ran his own little operation... Those weren't held because the operations were all above-board...

Still, it's your tax-dollars at work...