I notice a subtle difference between the published version of Cecil’s answer to this question (The Honolulu Weekly, vol 11, Number 29, 18-24 July 2001, p. 37) and the online version. I think Cecil’s got it right online. In the published answer to this question about intelligence collection, Cecil writes, “Evidently the NSA doesn’t routinely monitor domestic communcations, but no law forbids it to do so . . .” This is factually incorrect. Cecil tackles it well in the online version, with a link to the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978, but could go one step further. Do a simple search for “Executive Order 12333” and you will come up with any number of sites offering the entire text of what intelligence professionals generally consider to be the bible of Intelligence Oversight. Lots of legalese and precise–read: dull–definitions, but the bottom line is that there is no such thing as routine monitoring, or intelligence collection of any kind against “US persons.” For investigations, cases, etc., monitoring and other types of intelligence collection are authorized, but are highly monitored, and must be approved through a stringent legal process in accordance with United States Code. This system works well, and is a direct result of the far too out-of-bounds US military/defense intelligence collection conducted against US persons in the past, most notably/infamously against anti-war and civil rights advocates in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. These documents are a daunting read, but reveal that the perceived and much-maligned Big Brother is not nearly as bad as most incorrectly think.
A link to the column is appreciated. Does voice-activated eavesdropping technology listen in on phone conversations for suspicious “keywords”?
Keep in mind that an Execuitve Order is not the same as a law. Unlike a law, an Executive Order can be overridden by a later Executive Order. The text of some Executive Orders remains secret. It is possible (as I understand it), that parts of Executive Order 12333 may have been superseded by a later secret Executive Order. If so, the fact would not have been made public. I suspect it has not been superseded, but we can’t know for sure.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at the link provided by bibliophage.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
rugby007 - it would seem to me that “such-an-such is forbidden by executive order x” and “such-and-such is not done by government agencies” are two different things. In the Iran-Contra affair, a USA government agency (the National Security Council) became involved in actions that contravened US law.
Just what are you suggesting, Pinky? That the U.S. Government is required to abide by U.S. law?
Liberal propoganda. Can we get a moderator in here?
It’s Commies like you that are trying to get between me and my tax refund.
Hey FarmerOak calm down, maybe Arnold is a commie, but he’s entitled to his opinions also.
Anyway, the real reason I wanted to post on this forum is that I think Cecil missed a salient point regarding this topic. If communications are being monitored, and those being monitored know about it, they’re usually fairly careful about what they say (or how they say it). Along the same lines, even if communications are not being monitored (or if it’s not known whether they’re being monitored or not), anyone planning a covert act is probably going to be careful what they say (or again, how they say it).
Hence the use of common code words and phrases that have meaning only between the parties involved in the conversation. So instead of saying, “I’m going to plant a bomb at the World Trade Center.” one would say “I’m going to deliver a package downtown.”
If the 1st conversation is being monitored for key words, bomb kind of sticks out. However, in the 2nd sentence, there isn’t a key word that would raise a red flag. So, in either case (communications monitored or not), and the conversation is regarding something covert, a system to detect key words and record those communications would soon become obsolete. Alternate (common) terms would supplant the key words being monitored for and render the system useless (except for the stupidest of criminals/terrorists).
Farmer Oak - I prefer the term “urban guerilla”, it has more of a sexy ring to it.
Rocket - I’m pretty sure Farmer Oak was being facetious.
In re your point about people being careful if there is the possibility of eavesdropping - probably true, but it can’t be 100% true or law enforcement agencies wouldn’t use wiretapping as a tool.
Just in case, I hope Echelon isn’t monitoring this message board!
The chair is in the hall.
The chair is in the hall.