Saxby & FISA

icon_dirt.gifWith a little prodding from Mel, I wrote to Senator Chambliss yesterday urgining him to vote against the FISA bill. His speedy response is below the fold:


Dear Ms. Brock:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 2248, the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act.” It is good to hear from you.

S. 2248 was introduced on October 26, 2007, and referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Senate Judiciary Committee subsequently requested referral of the bill and is considering it now. Since 1978, Congress has provided rigorous oversight of our Intelligence Community and enacted valuable legislation, such as FISA, in order to guide those who collect intelligence. Congress and the Intelligence Community have taken steps to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from unnecessary government intrusions into their private lives while at the same time balancing the government’s need to collect vital intelligence necessary to ward off terrorist attacks.

The post 9/11 environment in which Congress must now consider FISA is much different from the Cold War era. Our enemies communicate through more sophisticated means and in a more security conscious manner than in 1978. These evolving threats must be considered by Congress during the debate on FISA modernization. For instance, when FISA was enacted in 1978, Congress used language that was technology-dependent and related specifically to the telecommunications systems that existed at the time, such as “wire and radio communications.” In 1978, most foreign communications went through the air rather than over a wire and most domestic communications were on a wire. Today, however, most domestic communications, like cell phone communications, travel through the air and most international communications travel over a wire. This change in technology has altered critically the way in which our Intelligence Community conducts electronic surveillance. It is critical that Congress enact FISA legislation to ensure that our Intelligence Community has the tools and the legal framework necessary to protect our country from terrorist attacks and to collect vital foreign intelligence information.

Another important provision included in the bill provides our telecommunications carriers with liability relief for any alleged assistance they may have provided the President following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The government often needs assistance from the private sector in order to protect our national security and in return they should be able to rely on government’s assurances. The civil suits that have been brought against electronic communication providers seek billions of dollars in damages. It is imperative that we provide protections to providers that legally cooperate with the Intelligence Community to provide information that is crucial to thwarting future terrorist attacks. Without these protections, electronic communications providers may be reluctant to assist the intelligence community in ascertaining information vital to protecting our country.

The world changed on September 11, 2001, and it is vitally important that the President of the United States have the power and authority to act on information to protect the American people from future acts of terrorism by al- Qai da ‘ and others who target the United States. Although not a perfect bill, I supported the FISA Amendments Act during consideration in the Intelligence Committee due to the bi-partisan process it underwent and in order to provide our Intelligence Community with the minimum requirements it needs in an environment with rapidly changing technology. While the legislation provides much-needed updates to FISA, I believe the bill needs to be further amended in order to achieve the delicate balance it attempts to strike and I look forward to working with the full Senate to debate and improve the legislation before final enactment in order to secure the privacy rights of Americans while protecting our national security.

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “Saxby & FISA”

  1. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    “How could we become so dependent on satellites without the means to protect them?”

    Pretty much the main type of protection was against nuclear EMP, although even this capability has been reduced of late as fewer microchip production facilities find the space / military market profitable. Look for things like the RAD6000 computer:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD6000

    As for physical protection, satellite killing is as easy as missile defense is hard. You have a nice, fragile object flying around with a very predictable path. I further have a feeling that explosives will be much lighter and cheaper to throw in orbit than the armor to defend against them.

    We are, after all, speaking of a regime where each pound of material is automatically worth $2000. Of course, it’s defense, so what’s stopped us from ridiculous spending before?

    “Are other countries really less vulnerable?”

    Not in the slightest, except for the fact that they don’t have as thorough a capability with sat-directed work as we do. Of course, worst-case scenario, our logistics fall back to being as good as the next guy.

    “Can we really protect ourselves against any and all threats?”

    On orbit, hard to say. Imagine shrapnel that persists for 100 years. That’s a pretty rough neighborhood.

    Finally, I don’t know this for certain, but I am sure there are a number of “dead” satellites out there that may be able to back us up if the dark day ever came…

  2. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    I was reading a magazine story today about the vulnerability of our satellite system. The gist of the article was that we need to develop more aggressive measures to protect out current reliance on satellites, but I thought it was ironic that the very thing that gives us a technological superiority is also a significant vulnerability. (Apparently China has recently demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites in orbit.) How could we become so dependent on satellites without the means to protect them? Are other countries really less vulnerable? Can we really protect ourselves against any and all threats?

    I think the combination of deterrence and engagement is a path to minimizing vulnerability. Unfortunately, we are currently in the mode of confrontation and dominance.

  3. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    Chris,

    The difference is the Russians could come up with that stuff on their own. The al-Queda folks and so forth are using *our old stuff* at best.

    In terms of relative capability, AQ circa 2008 is far behind Russia circa 1978 based on the fact that the Russians had guys capable of coming up with all new things that the world had never seen before. AQ is stuck with whatever self-educated hacker or commercial tech they can get their hands on. And in the encryption world, you need to be able to write math papers in order to move sweet new product.

    In other words, as in so manner other cases, what we call a “threat” to our country nowadays pales in comparison to a first-world counterpart with all of our abilities and skills. The Russians could draw megatons on New York at will. Hezbollah (not equal to AQ, but similar in ability) can barely aim rockets in the correct direction.

    However, as is starting to sink in, whatever law the Congress passes on this issue is currently irrelevant.

    Bush won’t obey anything set before him anyways. Congress currently lacks the will to use its power as a co-equal branch of government.

  4. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    I like the way he says “…relief for any alleged assistance they may have provided the President…”. Not “the government”, not the CIA or the FBI or the NSA, but “the President”. I’m not sure if that’s an attempt to create some distance or a hint that we are supposed to genuflect now.

    Most of the Constitution deals with protecting the people from an overzealous government. Saxby is saying that companies shouldn’t question the government even when it looks like they might be asking for something that is illegal. We should all just TRUST the government.

    This government, of all US governments, has not earned that trust.

    Thomas Jefferson would be freaking out.

  5. chris Avatar
    chris

    It is of course a tricky way for Saxby to write the letter, but you’ve got to be kidding me if you honestly believe that 1978 encryption (even by a powerful country) is anywhere near as sophisticated as the encryption used in 2008 when you simply make a purchase on Amazon.com – or even to sign in through typepad on this blog.

    And comparing it to German encyrption in World War II is also laughable. How could code words compare to computer powered technology? Of course, the caveat applies that since it is all technology driven we also have the ability to keep up with the schemes, but still…I highly doubt anything anyone was doing in 1978 would be worth anything at this point.

  6. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    “Our enemies communicate through more sophisticated means and in a more security conscious manner than in 1978.”

    You. Must. Be. Shitting. Me.

    Saxby – I understand if you have never learned math or can’t spell a single Russian name.

    But lemme tell you, those Ruskies were friggin’ geniuses. Believe me, they knew encryption. They had a couple of schemes that made the Germans look like schoolchildren. The only one one of their ciphers got busted was when one of their guys got lazy and didn’t change the input key sheets often enough (so I hear).

    Yeah, cave-dwellers that are still using our equipment for the most part are even close to the full might of the Russian intelligentsia.

  7. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    Props where props are due: You got a response and it was actually thoughtful. Makes you wonder if he is up for re-election this year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *