The Obama administration is seeking increased domestic spying powers

Earlier this summer, we discussed a special report issued by the Washington Post on America’s rapidly expanding domestic surveillance infrastructure. I, and others, were shocked by the continued growth under the Obama administration. Among other things, it was noted that some 30,000 individuals are presently employed exclusively to listen in on our domestic conversations. Here, with more on that, is a clip from Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria:

…Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that’s the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That’s more than the rest of the world spends put together. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet—the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built—at a cost of $3.4 billion—to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.

This new system produces 50,000 reports a year—136 a day!—which of course means few ever get read. Those senior officials who have read them describe most as banal; one tells me, “Many could be produced in an hour using Google.” Fifty-one separate bureaucracies operating in 15 states track the flow of money to and from terrorist organizations, with little information-sharing….

But, as Zakaria later notes, none of this so-called intelligence helped prevent Nidal Malik Hasan from killing 13 and wounding 30 at Fort Hood. Here, with more on that, is Zakaria:

…Some 30,000 people are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications in the United States. And yet no one in Army intelligence noticed that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been making a series of strange threats at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he trained. The father of the Nigerian “Christmas bomber” reported his son’s radicalism to the U.S. Embassy. But that message never made its way to the right people in this vast security apparatus. The plot was foiled only by the bomber’s own incompetence and some alert passengers…

And, from what I read in the press today, this vast security apparatus is continuing to grow unchecked. Today, the Obama administration confirmed that they will be requesting new powers to tap into our online communications. Following is a clip from the New York Times:

…Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design…

I can understand why the feds would want to make sure that they’re able to collect data that may prove critical in thwarting terrorist attacks, as new channels of communication are developed, and I’m sympathetic. But at what point do we draw the line? At what point do we say that our privacy is worth more to us than the illusion that increased domestic spying is keeping us safer. And, as Zakaria pointed out, it is an illusion. We had ample warning about Nidal Malik Hasan, and yet that attack still took place. Hell, Bush received a national security brief on Osama’s intention to strike within the United States, and there were a number of red flags concerning the individual 9/11 terrorists, but somehow those attacks still took place. Maybe I’d be more understanding if we had a better track record. The truth is, though, I don’t see how we’ll be in any better of a position as a country for having extended greater domestic spying rights to the feds.

[If you’re so inclined, you can give a donation to the EFF here.]