5 ms·

This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents on

This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents on secret surveillance programs in the interest of national security. The article was a more interesting read than I expected when I first saw it on my Google News page. President Franklin Roosevelt was advised to violate a specific Supreme Court holding about intercepting telegraph communications with persons outside the United States.[1] The history, across multiple administrations, has often been a history of security concerns trumping individual liberty concerns. But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in the government. [1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act barred such a move."

erikpukinskis 13y ago
I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway.
- edmccard 13y ago
  > I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway. That case (wiretapping, advice against from Attorney General Robert Jackson) is different from the one tokenadult is referring to (intercepting telegrams, advice in favor from Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy).
pvnick 13y ago
On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of support for reforming the surveillance apparatus: http://rally.stopwatching.us http://rally.stopwatching.us
- chinpokomon 13y ago
  Any idea why the SSL certificate for that site would be invalid? I'd rather not connect to a site, given the nature of the content, if I can't know who maintains the site and where a valid SSL certificate is a good first step in due diligence.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kansface 13y ago
    Why would you care about an invalid cert if you aren't handing over any credentials?
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      An invalid cert could indicate a MITM attack. Even if you're not sending anything down, who knows what they're sending back?
    - rwmj 13y ago
      Because someone might alter the content, eg: changing the date of the rally (so some people don't turn up on the right day), or making the event much look more unconvincing so you don't bother going.
  - randomdestructn 13y ago
    I'm getting a valid cert. http://i.imgur.com/FQ4Yb94.png http://i.imgur.com/FQ4Yb94.png
  - rwmj 13y ago
    I'm getting a valid certificate so maybe you are being MITM'd?
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
ds9 13y ago
The USG actually started on its electronic surveillance career in the 1860s, when Lincoln approved routing all the telegraph connections thru the office of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [1]. The first electronic (?) MITM, maybe. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveillance-state.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveilla...
- devx 13y ago
  Maybe it would be acceptable to do something like that "in a time of war". The problem with today's government is that it seems to define everything in terms of an endless war. Cyber-attacks? "We're at cyberwar". Terrorism? "We're at war with all the nations harboring terrorists". Domestic terrorism? Well there's already the "war on drugs", so they probably don't care that much about that one, as long as they still get all the powers they need inside the country, too. 9 in 10 NSL's are used for drug cases, actually. Surprised? Such sustained surveillance - indefinitely - is simply unacceptable, and people need to fight back against it. If the nation really is at some sort of "long term war" with multiple enemies, then maybe the nation is doing something very wrong, and should look at the root cause of what's causing those enemies to react, rather than trying to fix the problem later with surveillance. The problem is maintaining the war status quo is so very profitable for certain people and companies.

erikpukinskis 13y ago

I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway.

edmccard 13y ago
> I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway. That case (wiretapping, advice against from Attorney General Robert Jackson) is different from the one tokenadult is referring to (intercepting telegrams, advice in favor from Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy).

pvnick 13y ago

On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of support for reforming the surveillance apparatus: http://rally.stopwatching.us http://rally.stopwatching.us

chinpokomon 13y ago
Any idea why the SSL certificate for that site would be invalid? I'd rather not connect to a site, given the nature of the content, if I can't know who maintains the site and where a valid SSL certificate is a good first step in due diligence.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kansface 13y ago
  Why would you care about an invalid cert if you aren't handing over any credentials?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    An invalid cert could indicate a MITM attack. Even if you're not sending anything down, who knows what they're sending back?
  - rwmj 13y ago
    Because someone might alter the content, eg: changing the date of the rally (so some people don't turn up on the right day), or making the event much look more unconvincing so you don't bother going.
- randomdestructn 13y ago
  I'm getting a valid cert. http://i.imgur.com/FQ4Yb94.png http://i.imgur.com/FQ4Yb94.png
- rwmj 13y ago
  I'm getting a valid certificate so maybe you are being MITM'd?
- jlgaddis 13y ago

ds9 13y ago

The USG actually started on its electronic surveillance career in the 1860s, when Lincoln approved routing all the telegraph connections thru the office of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [1]. The first electronic (?) MITM, maybe. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveillance-state.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveilla...

devx 13y ago
Maybe it would be acceptable to do something like that "in a time of war". The problem with today's government is that it seems to define everything in terms of an endless war. Cyber-attacks? "We're at cyberwar". Terrorism? "We're at war with all the nations harboring terrorists". Domestic terrorism? Well there's already the "war on drugs", so they probably don't care that much about that one, as long as they still get all the powers they need inside the country, too. 9 in 10 NSL's are used for drug cases, actually. Surprised? Such sustained surveillance - indefinitely - is simply unacceptable, and people need to fight back against it. If the nation really is at some sort of "long term war" with multiple enemies, then maybe the nation is doing something very wrong, and should look at the root cause of what's causing those enemies to react, rather than trying to fix the problem later with surveillance. The problem is maintaining the war status quo is so very profitable for certain people and companies.