Privacy for Me, But Not for Thee

US Senator Sam Brownback is outraged that China may monitor the internet use of hotel guests in Beijing for the Olympics. I mean, what kind of a country would engage in electronic surveillance without any kind of warrant or due process? Only an authoritarian nightmare like China. Or, well, the United States of America. Brownback explains the difference thusly:

We don't put the hardware and software on hotels. If there is a targeted individual that seems to be a likely prospect of terrorists, they must go through the FISA court and ask for a court to determine that there is probable cause to be able to listen in on that information.

That's great. That really is the difference between a bad policy and a good one. In a country with meaningful privacy rights, the government would need to go to a court and get someone to agree that there's probably cause before they're allowed to listen in. But that's exactly what the Bush administration didn't do and what the new legal framework will let them get away with not doing. Maybe Brownback wasn't briefed?

Comments

"We don't put the hardware and software on hotels."

"Instead, we put the hardware and software at the telecomm companies where we can more effectively monitor all communications, not just the communications from the hotels. Then, despite being against the law, we grant the telecomm's retroactive immunity."

"Isn't that better?"

-- Senator Sam Brownnose

Posted by LFC | July 30, 2008 10:17 AM

By the way, Brownback also supports the U.S. being able to lawfully monitor the Internet use of non-U.S. persons in their hotel rooms in China without any sort of warrant (see Section 101 of the FISA amendments bill). So he is fine with us surveilling the Canadians, Brits, Australians, and so on attending the Olympics without a warrant, but not the Chinese doing the same.

Posted by DTM | July 30, 2008 10:21 AM

They probably would need a warrant to bug an individual hotel. Bugging the entire country was much easier!

Posted by Rob | July 30, 2008 10:22 AM

brownback is one of the stupidest senators around, and that takes some doing.

Posted by howard | July 30, 2008 10:24 AM

I think Democrats could get a lot more mileage out of the "American surveillance is just imitating Chinese surveillance" angle. It would be similar to the way liberals encouraged better policies here during the Cold War - draw a moral distinction with the USSR and expect us to be the good guys.

Of course, doing that might violate Brad DeLong's policy of "appeasing China is the most important thing ever, ever"...

Posted by Noah | July 30, 2008 10:53 AM

As with everything the GOP (and apparently a large segment of the Democrats) love, spying on individuals is only allowed if the US government - aided by US corporations, or really, really large foreign corporations from questionable countries - does the spying. The "far left" - i.e the communists - can't be trusted. And how does Brownback know that the Chinese government hasn't set up a kangaroo court similar to the FISA court which has given its approval to this spying. I mean, if a rubber stamp is what you're looking for, I'm pretty certain the Chinese government has one they can show him.

Posted by po | July 30, 2008 10:53 AM

Glennzilla has a great post today about the stupidity of the Republicans on this issue.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 30, 2008 11:15 AM

In a country with meaningful privacy rights, the government would need to go to a court and get someone to agree that there's probably cause before they're allowed to listen in. But that's exactly what the Bush administration didn't do and what the new legal framework will let them get away with not doing.

Is that the case with the new legal framework? I was under the impression the monitoring of electronic communication doesn't constitute "listening" as such, but rather key word filtering ("New York Subway," "Plutonium," "Sarin" etc), and that an elevation to actual wiretapping, and the targeting of specific individuals, requires a warrant.

Posted by Jasper | July 30, 2008 1:35 PM

Brownback's comments on the Chinese is sort of like Bush wanting more police state powers, where Saddam's actualized police state would be sort of an idealized end point.

And yet these liberals wish Saddam was still in power, lording over the majority Shia and Kurds, or rather his removal from power was the worst disaster in human history in their opinion.

Is that the case with the new legal framework? I was under the impression the monitoring of electronic communication doesn't constitute "listening" as such, but rather key word filtering ("New York Subway," "Plutonium," "Sarin" etc), and that an elevation to actual wiretapping, and the targeting of specific individuals, requires a warrant.

Yeah, but distinctions like that don't really matter to folks like "Glennzilla."

Posted by Peter K. | July 30, 2008 4:41 PM

"And yet these liberals wish Saddam was still in power, lording over the majority Shia and Kurds, or rather his removal from power was the worst disaster in human history in their opinion."

Perhaps you haven't heard of the hundreds of thousands of dead, millions displaced, billions of dollars spent spent, and continuing infrastructure faiulre in Iraq?

Posted by mad6798 | July 30, 2008 4:48 PM

Peter K. doesn't think much. When his job is to be Chris Hitchens' Jamie Kirchick, you end up in logical knots.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 30, 2008 5:26 PM

The "honorable-sic" Brownback thinks its terrible the Chinese monitor the Internet, yet he thinks the spying on and monitoring of innocent US citizens electronic transmissions by the Bu$h cabal is acceptable, go figure.

A Mr Peter K wants to blame "Liberals" wishing Saddam Hussein was still in power, only a pin-headed republican that thinks the GOP is the party of less federal spending and size of government would think such, since the republicans have never lived up to this and many of their other pledges.

Yo Pete, did you forget Saddam was a Ronald Reagan "Freedom Fighter" along with Osma Bin Laden and now your party leadership of multiple convicted substance abusers now re-label them as "Terrorist's". And Al-CIAda was created by the US to support the Afghanistan cause when it was illegally occupied by the former USSR.

Posted by Stanley Crawford | July 31, 2008 12:35 AM

The "honorable-sic" Brownback thinks its terrible the Chinese monitor the Internet, yet he thinks the spying on and monitoring of innocent US citizens electronic transmissions by the Bu$h cabal is acceptable, go figure.

A Mr Peter K wants to blame "Liberals" wishing Saddam Hussein was still in power, only a pin-headed republican that thinks the GOP is the party of less federal spending and size of government would think such, since the republicans have never lived up to this and many of their other pledges.

Yo Pete, did you forget Saddam was a Ronald Reagan "Freedom Fighter" along with Osma Bin Laden and now your party leadership of multiple convicted substance abusers now re-label them as "Terrorist's". And Al-CIAda was created by the US to support the Afghanistan cause when it was illegally occupied by the former USSR.

Posted by Stanley Crawford | July 31, 2008 12:37 AM

And yet these liberals wish Saddam was still in power, lording over the majority Shia and Kurds, or rather his removal from power was the worst disaster in human history in their opinion.

Versus your bullshit? When I was sixteen and joined Amnesty International, the first letter I wrote was some condemnitory action towards Saddam Hussein. That's prior gulf war I, that was against conservatitve CW.

You are nothing but a suckass and an apologist for idiocy and how about you quit erecting strawmen and just expire gracefully somewhere and quit using air that real people need.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 31, 2008 1:04 AM

Say a man is in quicksand. You pull him out, only to throw him in a cage with a pack of rabid wolves. Now, if liberals point out being ripped apart by rabid wolves leads to death, only idiots and neocons (I repeat myself) would then say "only liberals wish that man was still in quicksand." Peter K perfectly illustrates that point.

Posted by Reality Man | July 31, 2008 1:41 AM