General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRevealed: the top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant
Revealed: the top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant
Fisa court submissions show broad scope of procedures governing NSA's surveillance of Americans' communication
• Document one: procedures used by NSA to target non-US persons
• Document two: procedures used by NSA to minimise data collected from US persons
Glenn Greenwald and James Ball
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 June 2013 19.34 BST
The documents show that discretion as to who is actually targeted lies directly with the NSA's analysts. Photograph: Martin Rogers/Workbook Stock/Getty
Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information "inadvertently" collected from domestic US communications without a warrant.
The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target "non-US persons" under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.
...
However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:
• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;
• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine[s]" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
...
One-paragraph order
One such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order, signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment.
...
READ THE REST at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant?CMP=twt_gu
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Mission creep, here we come.
The title falsely claims the NSA can "use" data inadvertently captured without a court order. That is not what is happening at all. Far from it.
What these documents do is to confirm what we have been hearing from the testimony. There are procedures in place to assure that the preponderance of data captured is from foreign sources but that the PRISM data does not have a country of origin code so some data from Americans will inadvertently get scooped up as well. Again, this only applies to the capture of the data. To actually access the data requires a court order specific to a key value which means that no use of the data on Americans takes place. This is all about trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Where we cross the line between stopping "Terra" and being an adjunct of domestic law enforcement.
Those are the sections the original three NSA whistleblowers were worried about too.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)What you are saying here has nothing to do with what I posted. The other day there was an article where Yahoo said they had processed 13,000 court orders so far this year but those were about 99.992% from local law enforcement. Here I share your concern because law enforcement is just going fishing to see if they can find other charges to file or dirt on the individual to assure a plea bargain is obtained. I find it hard to justify probing Yahoo content concerning a DUI charge, for instance. Unless Police can identify an internet connection to the crime ahead of time I see no justification for a court order to access internet usage so the Judges are asleep in signing such orders. I find this far more insane than what the NSA is doing.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)"The title falsely claims the NSA can "use" data inadvertently captured without a court order. That is not what is happening at all. Far from it. "
FALSE.
My original topic was about how "information not relevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition" -- section 3(a), which despite the high section number describes the PURPOSE of the document -- can be "minimized."
HERE IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG: Section 5(2) explicitly spells even if the communication "does not contain foreign intelligence information" it *MAY* be forwarded to the appropriate Federal Law enforcement authorities if it shows "evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed."
The NSA can "use" data inadvertently captured for another purpose to aid law enforcement. It is already quite plain from the quoted success rates that FISA warrants are given for a FAR lower level of suspicioun than a real warrant. "American Idol with four Randy Jacksons" and all that.
So that thud was the fourth amendment hitting the wastebin. I would quote the entirety of the 4A to you, but that would just give you grounds to claim I was somehow "crazed."
Also, note the "May" is a big weasel word. They can turn it over, if they feel like it. They are also not responsible if they do not. Wording used to justify mission creep and selective enforcement -- both poisonous and corruptible. No wonder Binney was ready to be a whistleblower!
Given the latitude from our own laws that we give the NSA to pursue foreign communications, there is a REALLY good reason to make them drop evidence of criminal wrongdoing like they did during the cold war. You'd be amazed, but we used to brag about how that wall meant that we could balance security and freedom better than the commies.
But we won that one so the mask could come off I guess...
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Must be considered as well. For instance does "evidence" imply a court order has been issues specific to this individual? If that is the case then they have a tap on that individual and this simply allows them to also look at the history, even for Americans inadvertently dragged into the database. If that is the case then that would make my "false" true. What you are implying is a data mining operation that is not specific to an individual but is used to identify that individual based on "evidence" obtained from the mining operation. If that is the case then my "false" would be false. And, yes, a data mining operation would obliterate the 4A. Likewise, if this is a data mining operation then we are right back at where we were under Bush and I find that extremely troubling. Right now I don't know because there is so much not yet said on the subject. Do you have anything that is more definitive on the subject that shows it to be a data mining operation?
Pholus
(4,062 posts)But, given the sheer weight of the facilities planned for the NSA they are in the number crunching and storing business big time now. Hopefully the President follows through on his promise to get more of this program into the light so we can both know! 
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)I think we both have a little clearer picture. I know I made a statement that was too definitive since it relied on assumptions too much. Data mining, by the way is pretty complicated and takes a lot of computing power and that is why I am more dismissive than you appear to be. The only practical time to mine the data is in the same process that builds the database, which could be real-time, because doing it after the fact against 6 months data is just impractical. Data mining involves a process called sound-ex that assigns numeric values to words and then goes plus-minus against the numeric value of words being targeted. Keep in mind how many different languages and dialects there are with the PRISM data (and that is all we are talking about here). If these are targeted words you would want to capture both "terror" and "terrer" but not "terrier", "color" and "colour" but not "collar". In other words simple misspellings and dialects but not similar words. Get more sophisticated and you may need to view the context of the word since terrorist like to use code to avoid detection. "Recipe" not in a food context would want to be captured while not capturing it in a food context. (You also would want to pick up someone saying "that would be a recipe for disaster". You may even want different criteria for Google than for Twitter. Like I say, complicated. All of this takes massive computing power against the huge volume of data being captured. Yes, I am a retired IT guy with some experience with sound-ex. One application using this was directory assistance where a caller wants the number for Dick Petersen on Greystone Road and the operator keys in Dick Peterson on Graystone Road and up pops both Richard Petersen on Greystone Circle and Dick Peters on Greystone Circle -- at least they should pop up depending on the tightness of the sound-ex match.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I have worked with HPC since 1992 so I know that how computing power can be applied. I don't believe many "impossibles" anymore -- I'd run out of imagination long before I run out of tractable problems that the computer can perform for me. Now, I have been reading Bruce Schneier's blog for several years now, it typically gives really good insights given the wide variety of practical experience of the readers. For example, they had already worked out that sampled call storage was technically feasible using COTS technology and that text to speech like you described would aid in the ability to index the calls. I highly recommend his blog (http://www.schneier.com/) to you as well as his books, "Beyond Fear" in particular. If you ever needed to understand the "Security Theater" that our airport security represents, see some of the most damning takedowns imaginable as he shows how anyone could circumvent the "no fly" list with photoshop. Strangely, despite this failure repeatedly being reported it was never fixed. He continues commenting on computer security daily. One of his latest columns, on US Offensive Cyberwar Policy, is a must read when you get offended in the least that China is trying to hack us. All the kewl kids are doing it...
One of the more reassuring things I've read about NSA data in the last week is the five year limit, which IF ENFORCED, adds at least some limits to the program. I don't believe it will be, of course. Once you've went through the trouble of preserving something it could seem perverse to destroy it merely because an arbitrary amount of time has passed. And data always can be shown to have value you didn't realize when you collected it.
And yet, that data if kept forever is the most profound violation of "the American Spirit" that I can think of. Among the various stories we tell ourselves about our country's good traits is the concept of reinvention. We were raised on stories of attempt, fail, reinvent, fail...then a miracle occurs...wild success. The ability to declare bankruptcy and start over is also an American idea. The chance for a fresh start. But a permanent record of everything you communicate will never allow that reinvention to occur on a personal level and by extension on the financial levels. It stratifies class and chains it to your personality.
That metadata that I keep hearing is harmless? It damns you by your associates. If X is untrustworthy and X is friends with Y and Y talks to you a lot, you are basically untrustworthy because of your association with X. I can imagine that if not now, a future generation of security clearances will be granted on a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" analysis of your social network. Don't make friends with anyone who knows an anarchist or journalist and you'll do fine! I've written other threads where I have pondered on what advice to give my kids so that they can adapt to this brave new world we've got.
That data should NEVER have been collected, but if collected it should NEVER exist outside of an NSA server room where it was used for national security purposes only. That is why the "minimization document" represents such a crime, though I don't think people have really latched onto that. It demonstrates the application of data collected in a fashion antithetical to our national self-image being applied outside of the narrow mandate allowed it in the first place. Mission creep. Of course, data can always be shown to value you didn't realize when you collected. So the lure is strong.
Good exchange.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)be screaming about the compromise of attorney-client privilege:
WTF???????????
Pholus
(4,062 posts)but if I've learned anything in the last two weeks it is that you have to pay attention what is not said or to strange choices for working to figure out what is really being directed. I can see ways Section 4 could be skirted.
These guys behave like Pravda and then get offended when we don't trust them. Sheesh!
Monkie
(1,301 posts)faster than a monkie even!
i was just reading this and about to post when i saw you had already beat me too it. 
Catherina
(35,568 posts)What are your thoughts on this?
Monkie
(1,301 posts)of the law
and proven lies of the president
now it is up to the american public.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and what's more important, then, isn't what they do with the data but the fact that they *can* collect it, and do so with *impunity*: blackmail is nothing compared to building a total paralegal wall to operate behind: same thing with the Cold War and Iran-Contra, same thing with Menem's total pardon of the Dirty War (in that case, arresting those with Freud and Lacan on their shelves as part of the Commie-Judeo-Masonic plot to undermine the Christian worldview was *secondary*)
power would lie not in pushing through sweeping laws like the "Patriot" Act, but in the power to make Star-Chamber secret interpretations and then take secret action and make secret institutions based on that self-made interpretation: there'd be nothing between the elite, establishment, and Beltway hegemonic ideas and their enforcement: these ideas, I might add, has brought us Vietnam, the mujahideen, Zia, 200K dead Central Americans, and buyouts of Middle Eastern kidnappers in the 80s and the commercialization of everything, the race to the bottom, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the 90s and 00s
they can secretly hire whatever Paulbots, Randroids, foaming Islamophobes, total-agreement lackeys, centurion wannabes, and Jonestowners with no line to cross as their spies and trainers (though one has shown us how he discovered his conscience and found lines he wouldn't cross)
byeya
(2,842 posts)Group which paid $1.5Billion and expects to make the puchase price back and $3Billion more.
So, if the above is true, we're not only losing our rights, we are paying contractors to steal our rights for the profit of Bush&Co.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)NSA: "We only tap US machines and phone numbers and that associated content, so that we can be sure that tapping can be safely concluded."
Which means they tap everyone so they could find out if, say, when Obama was running for senate in 2006, would he make a good senator or not.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)and yes all of that too.
Their possibilities are endless.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't understand the use of this but the 'potential' keyword likely makes it not a big deal.
• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
So if NSA, in learning of a terrorist plot connected overseas, also sees a Replied To email with the text of a sender in the U.S., they should pretend they don't see it?
• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
It may not be kosher but it has nothing to do with our attorney-client privilege.
• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
For the purposes of ceasing surveillance. This sounds downright sublime.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Example, updated to the current situation:
A frightened man came to the NSA: "My talking parrot disappeared." "We don't do domestic crime. Go to your local police." "Excuse me. Of course I know that I have to go to them. I am here just to tell you officially that I disagree with that parrot."
randome
(34,845 posts)I wonder if that's been tested in court yet?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)If not the parrot will not need the cracker to talk. Dey haff veys.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)A new mummy was found in Egypt but the archaeologists could not place it in the histories of kings. Then the local CIA advisor offered to help. He took the mummy in an unmarked SUV and returned two hours later: "His name was Amenkhotep the 23rd."
The archaeologists were aghast: "How could you tell?"
"He confessed."
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)i mean its fun and all, i see it in all the scary threads, but really, this is something mayor and you two are playing these "games".
the lounge exists for a reason kids?
Pholus
(4,062 posts)What do you expect? Observing the sensible one working has got me feeling particularly Soviet right now. For some reason I am really thinking about one of Tim Curry's roles VERY much these days in our exchanges.
Also, isn't this why the whole NSA thing is supposed to bug the hell out of us?
Growing up, I believed the propaganda in the 80's, about how East Germany was a nightmare as everyone had to exist under the oppressive specter of surveillance. My fault I admit, not understanding that the propaganda was apparently meant only to exploit a momentary difference. Like most propaganda I suppose. I just didn't get that it was based in envy.
Now here we are, doing what the Stasi did -- IN SPADES -- and finding that there are about a third of the people who are upset by it, a third of the people who are indifferent and SHOCKINGLY a third of the people who think this is just peachy.
So what to do? It hit me today that most of my old crusty -- OBSOLETE -- jokes about Russia are now completely relevant again, just remove KGB and drop in NSA/CIA.
If that isn't a cutting commentary on what this is all about, I don't know what is. Outrage isn't working and worse people are simply immune to it these days, it's time to simply skewer it by showing how utterly absurd we have become by letting this happen.
nt
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Followed by classic dismissal. rationalization and ridicule.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I've explained my rationale above, but perhaps it wasn't sufficient.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And they usually are...but in the end the actions are what they are despite it all.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Sorry.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I understand what you are saying...and one either has to laugh or live in perpetual despair these days because it is so reminiscent of the Cold War years...only this time is US who are living through what the Soviets and the East Germans had to cope with.
To Pholus at "Gallows Humor" reply above.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)It also underlines that either what I was told as a child about the superiority of the American system was a lie brought on by the expediency of the cold war, or we have greatly strayed from our values.
It could be either, but I would (for the sake of sanity) greatly hope it is the latter.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)making Pravda and Tass (as applied to US print and television media) jokes for months now.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)"you inadvertently aquire" oops
then you have to access the content to check if they really are american or not.
but oops again, you evil terrorist you.
and then suddenly the illegal is legal.
if you do not understand what bush&co would do with those powers, or a future republican, i fear for you.
randome
(34,845 posts)But my example remains valid. If NSA gets hold of a foreign email that includes the text of a sender, they should be able to use that sender information. It's not like someone can 'unsee' it.
Do you think that's fair? I don't know how else the court could have worded it.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)say you are a OWS protester, you call you mom who is on holiday in spain, you are then "fair game" if you say one wrong word in that call. this makes nixon's "games" childs play..
when we think about our basic rights, our civil liberties, i was taught to think worst case, and plan/assume from there, you are assuming the best case, democratic president, good guy, only after evil guys, everything that is possibly accidental is accidental.
but im sorry, that is not reality, that is not what things will be like if the RW get hold of this.
let me remind you, i do have personal experience of being spied on by government, i was 9, and our phones were tapped because my dad worked in the defense industry, and had hippie friends. my dad was a war vet, he was no traitor, no danger to the state.
randome
(34,845 posts)Every law can be bent, ignored or broken. We don't even know what type of safeguards are in place at the NSA and I think we should.
I think it's likely there are at least three levels of sign-offs before any type of access can be conducted but we really don't know.
Even Snowden didn't give us much information on that.
If there are sufficient levels of approval in place, it makes it very unlikely abuse of the system can occur.
It doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. That's about the best that any law can do. There is no law that makes something impossible.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
you posted it yourself, you read it? comprehend it? pretend to be bush&co and read it?
do you not see how broad this is?
randome
(34,845 posts)If there are sufficient safeguards regarding approvals, then I don't see an analyst and his/her supervisor and that supervisor's manager would all happen to agree that some innocent person with OWS needs to be leaned on.
Like I said, we don't know what kind of approval process is in place at the NSA. We should find that out.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)im not quite sure what you mean since it went from a loophole to a key phrase with sufficient safeguards within a few posts of yours.
randome
(34,845 posts)Like I said, if an NSA analyst discovered an email received by a foreign individual, that email might also contain the original text of the sender in the U.S.
How should they handle that if the email concerns a terrorist plot? Pretend they didn't see it? I think that's a valid example of "inadvertently acquired".
It could be used as a loophole but, again, that would require everyone up and down the chain of command to cooperate with evil intentions. We don't know how the approval process works at the NSA but I bet it makes abuse extremely unlikely.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Jarla
(156 posts)about the moral uprightness of everyone working in the intelligence community.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)These people applied for jobs that require them to snoop on their neighbors.
Those with good character do not do this, IMO.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)what is your confidence level?
randome
(34,845 posts)Those are the regulations. There is no law that will prevent anything, all we can do is make things as clear-cut as possible.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Most email servers, e.g. gmail, require encrypted connections.
Therefore, almost all email is fair game for the White House.
All cell phone calls are encrypted. Probably all land line phone calls, too. And Skype.
So, likely, all communications are fair game.
randome
(34,845 posts)Do the words "inadvertently obtained" mean nothing to you? Read the examples I pointed out.
No law is perfect. Actually, no law prevents a thing. We make the laws and then we make rules and regulations to fill the gaps. The info in the OP is attempting to fill the gaps. It's bureaucratic-ese that fills every government -and most corporate- environments.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the NSA is disregarding the regulations and then point to a regulation that attempts to clarify and pin down what they can and cannot do.
Because according to you, they don't pay attention to the regulations. Having worked as a federal employee for the Social Security Administration for 5 years, I am well aware of how complex the rules and regulations are. Maddeningly so.
If I wanted to, I could have approved just about anyone for retirement or disability insurance. But my files would be reviewed, documents re-examined.
I have no doubt the NSA has the same level of second level and third level checking on all their activities. The NSA, like most government agencies, is composed of people who just want to do their jobs and go home at the end of the day.
They really aren't much different from you or me. They don't get to work and think to themselves, "Who can I screw over today?"
I think a lot of you think of the NSA as composed of secret agents. The people who examine data are Analysts. They sit at desks and pour over material that has been shunted their way by lower level employees. They push buttons to run programs. They type up reports.
Actually, that's just guesswork on my part but I think it's more accurate than the image of them as 'spies'.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
KoKo
(84,711 posts)that needs to be tightened up. You were a Government Employee...but so much of this work is being done by "Private/Outside Contractors" who can do whatever they wish with the info...
Government Control had a system set up for employees with standards and oversight. And while nothing is perfect even with Government Employees... the problem is that there are too many outside people who have access to our information who can do what they want with it.
We've seen what's gone on with Wall Street and Deregulation and Outsourcing our Government and Military to Private Contractors has been a disaster.
randome
(34,845 posts)Now it looks as if even more of Snowden's resume was fabricated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698
That's a company I think we would all agree needs to suffer for their negligence.
I don't know, however, if the actual analysts who make the decisions are employees or contractors. I would hope they are employees.
How much of this march to second-rate operations is done because of budget cuts in an insane attempt to 'drown the government in a bathtub'?
We need more federal employees, not fewer. Keep them where we can see them and hold them accountable.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)I'm sure all of you read it throughly...
Monkie
(1,301 posts)you have some nerve coming here and posting that, i'll give you that one, i expected you would not dare say anything for quite a while after seeing what a fool these latest leaks made of the arguments you were making only a few hours ago.
so hats of for your "balls".
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)I don't react in a childish manner, nor do I make my posts based off of my opinions or fly from the seat of my pants. Right now I'm texting on my phone so I couldn't put this one into laymans terms.
Stop trying to start shit with me because you didn't like the fact like I used the letter of the law as the basis of my posts, in the last discussion with you.
Yes, I work in the legal field & have faith in the justice system. You can't make it up as you go, that's not the way it works.
Now go find someone else to bug.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)spin all you like, but people can go view the exchange between you and me, and then look at this new data, and see that quite a few "emperors" have no clothes on, one of them being the president who lied, the other...
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)he is spinning this bs without providing half the law that goes with it. I welcome everyone to look at it, then they can actually understand all of the laws that govern FISA & the FISC & the Court of Review since Greenwald & the MSM has neglected to mention they even exist.
We are done.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)cool story miss anonymous expert, i bet you are done, maybe you can find someone more gullible to tell your story too.
its a interesting story but a little um, shallow, look the "the letter of the law" ignore the secret interpretation, the secret warrants, the secret opinions, heck, lets just ignore the leaks of real FISA docs, because, look, im a self proclaimed anonymous legal expert telling you to ignore harvard educated lawyers.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)opinions as well, when I provided the link to the FISC. It has all the rulings & motions, you should try reading them instead of spouting nonsense.
You can call me names & try to assassinate my character or whatever you call what you are trying to do. However, if you remember correctly you asked me specifically what I thought of Greenwald's piece & even when I submitted my response to you all it was, was the facts of FISA & nothing more.
I know see you baited me into some stupid ass silly debate, to which every citation I have given you, you have only been able to back up with a quote.
Guess what. Quotes don't win cases, facts & case law do.
For the last time please leave me alone. I really don't want to put you on ignore.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)handed over to the FBI or other law enforcement agencies where they'll apply their own minimization rules for validity.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)Just insinuation, with the promise of more to come.. please subscribe for details.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or cynically the new talking points have not seen distribution.
Sorry...I am to that point.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)but none seem to have any real talking points yet.
i never ignore anyone, sometimes they say something useful, its rare, but still, even if its just once.
so what say you nadin?
are snowden and greenwald master tacticians?
are the powers that be really as dumb as they look?
how many lies will they tell before they give up and realise it will bite them again?
remind me, how many lies has this drip drip drip exposed already?im losing count.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is about the kind of world that is being created...and it will not end well.
Connect this to the TTP and nafta for example. It becomes very clear. It will end in an ugly way. But all this "democracy" is just part of the scenery.
We are living in a real life dystopia my friend. And to protect the self many are in denial.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Like the 3 monkeys.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)As of the time of this post, I can only see productive comments from 6 people.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Monkie
(1,301 posts)they relied on court orders, warrants and have procedures in place?
not much of a mantra to chant oneself to sleep with...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Monkie
(1,301 posts)The Guardian doesn't seem to be in the business of producing anything concrete Just insinuation, with the promise of more to come
lets pretend they are not exposing lie after lie after lie by letting the PTB spin and spin between leaks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)These folks ARE funny, if nothing else....
Monkie
(1,301 posts)surely you see why i dont ignore people, normally i would pay good money for this if it was a live show.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that management has no issue with...
I hit my limit a while ago on that account.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)hate of muslims combined with disregard for the human rights and lives of other human beings as long as they are "foreign"
im also not really used to the flagwaving nationalism.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)they relied on court orders, warrants and have procedures in place?
not much of a mantra to chant oneself to sleep with...
...afraid to respond to me directly? You think those are "talking points"?
The authors write that the documents "detail the circumstances in which data collected on U.S. persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the U.S., and reveals how U.S. call records are used to help remove U.S. citizens and residents from data collection."
"The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or e-mail information without warrants," Greenwald and Ball write.
The procedures governing collection of information on foreign targets "cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic U.S. communications," the Guardian says. It reported earlier this month that most data collection happens with approval of the FISA court under the Patriot Act.
The FISA court allows the NSA to keep data "that could potentially contain details of U.S. persons" for up to five years, and to retain and use "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications that contain "usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity," the Guardian writes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/20/nsa-surveillance-fisa-court/2442899/
Greenwald reports on procedures and then adds his potential for abuse claims. He isn't citing any abuse.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Just people like me who don't ignore because I like to see the shit...it makes me understand you better.
It's a hobby pf mine.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)They're not very good at persuading people who don't say Yes Sir/Ma'am and No Sir/Ma'am.
It's a sight to behold as they try to defend "reasonable belief" and rules so vague and squishy as to be no obstacle at all.
Very very weak. It's almost embarrassing to watch but fascinating at the same time. Their last talking point, that this was actually good news was a dismal #Fail
Monkie
(1,301 posts)but that was in another topic, i was very hopeful he/she would provide a challenging debate but it didnt get further than "this is the law" and all those constitutional lawyers and their arguments are a joke.
but i was impressed that when this hit a few hours later they did make a brief attempt to manage the debate in this thread, but gave up after some gentle mocking.
its a bit sad when even the lawyer types cant make a coherent argument stand up for long.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It's kind of hard to make a coherent argument stand up for long when you're defending something with so many loopholes you could use it as a fishing net.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)no argument, no coherence, nothing?
i'm sure this is not the last leak, but this must be one of the big ones, or is it me? what can be bigger than this?
people were saying they wanted more evidence, more detail, more facts.
but dont want to discuss them, or express their feelings?
i try to stay respectful of the fact that this is not my country, so there are limits to what i feel i am justified in discussing, but i really am amazed at the apathy, it is apathy? fear?
acceptance?
just something random comment on this article at the guardian website, the english love their sense of humor..
NSA operative: Hey Judge baby, sign here please.
FISA Judge: I thought you had a rubber stamp made for these things?
NSA operative: Whatever you say Judgey.
FISA Judge: Actually it's whatever you say...
Catherina
(35,568 posts)and instead focus on Snowden's *treason* and there's a lot of apathy, just like in PreNazi Germany. People think it won't affect them because they don't think they have anything to hide.
Here's how the coverage here is going.
We get a choice between this:
GWEN IFILL, NEWSHOUR: Thank you, Glenn. Now for analysis is Rep. Elmer Fudd, chairman of the House Un-Intelligence Activities Committee. Congressman Fudd?
FUDD: Thank you, Gwen. The surveillance was approved by an act of Congress in 2009 and has had judicial review, so it's perfectly legal. And it has stopped terrorist attacks, lots and lots of them.
GWEN: How do you know?
FUDD: Because Congress, or at least my Committee, or at least me and a few others, have been regularly briefed.
GWEN: When? How often?
FUDD: I can't really say. We're sworn to secrecy. I'd like to keep my first-born child, if I could. But the FISA court did sign off on it
GWEN: They seem to have rubber-stamped it.
FUDD: Can't get more efficient than that, yes sirree.
GWEN: And now, it's pledge week, when PBS turns our programming over to local stations so they can keep programs like this on the air.
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/24480665
and this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023053750
Monkie
(1,301 posts)but on the internet there is comment, and its not very flattering.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)(or maybe I'm hanging out in less refined places)
Who could have guessed people all over the world would react so angrily to finding out that all their communications are being *hoovered* by the largest Military Industrial Complex in the world? And with absolutely no protection?
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)American citizens, yet legions have been dispatched to do that very thing. You can see them on television, hear them on the radio, and read their screed right here on the internet.
Thank goodness we have laws to protect us from government operations designed to fool us.
Psy-Ops are used because they can't be prosecuted in court.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)is that not what that reporter exposed, the one who is now dead, generals using psy-ops against members of government/congress/house
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)as shills for the government.
Interestingly enough, it is the Mercedes mechanics, who doubt the fiery result of the crash, that killed Michael Hastings, could have unfolded the way it did. Evidently, the Mercedes is the least likely car to explode into flames in an accident.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)i thought the "sound of explosion" was just how someone who did not witness the crash described the sound of the crash and this was not sinister, at first i thought the fact that the engine "dropped" was due to safety features and the high speed of the collision.
killing journalists is more normal in other countries, some where the US has a malevolent presence, but from what i see "they" normally just let US journalists "rant" at home.
what shocked me most, except for the death itself, was the reaction of people, so many people saw this as suspicious, this says something about peoples trust in democracy, and how far this has dropped.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)but I noticed the same public reaction to the crash that you did.
In my experience, it is not usually the auto mechanics, who are the first to call foul on a suspicious event.
But, as our roles in Argentina's "Dirty War" and the disappearance of journalists in Brazil demonstrate, the press has long been a concern for US strategists. Journalists' voices here, have been easily controlled through the newsroom presence of the CIA and by their own self-censorship. Rouge reporters, like Hastings, are harder to control.
Wikileaks revealing that Hastings had contacted their lawyer only hours before the crash and the subsequent denial by the FBI of any surveillance of Hastings, coinciding with the Snowden affair, was enough to make even the most conservative citizen ask questions.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Thanks, you cheered me up.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)themselves look good.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)<...>
One such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order, signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment.
...they relied on court orders, warrants and have procedures in place?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Jarla
(156 posts)From the Document on Minimization Procedures
Section 3(b)(1)
Personnel will exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether information acquired must be minimized and will destroy inadvertently acquired communications of or concerning a United States person at the earliest practicable point in the processing cycle at whi ch such communications can be identified either: as clearly not relevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition the communication does not contain foreign intelligence information); or, as not containing evidence of a crime which may be disseminated under these procedures. Such inadvertently acquired communications of or concerning a United States person may be retained no longer than five years in any event. The communications that may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSA's ability to filter communications.
I'm curious about how many electronic communications from United States persons are being acquired "inadvertently" because of these "limitations."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Jarla
(156 posts)I've seen it quoted a few times, but I don't know where it comes from.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not that anybody pressured the good general, who suddenly left out an oops
Monkie
(1,301 posts)or 1% better than a coin toss, wow, you cant make this stuff up can you..
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)well, too bad.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)some 10 years ago during the bush years, im sure that way of "saving money" that some telecoms companies used does not happen these days.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)though Mexico... and after the telephone company was partially privatized in mexico. It's all gravy... I am starting to think that perhaps it is best to find something that will make a difference. I am not sure this will any longer.
randome
(34,845 posts)According to accounts of how the system seems to work, it's then left to intelligence analysts to tweak their algorithms until they're only investigating hits on people they have a "51% confidence" of being foreign.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
randome
(34,845 posts)In other words, if an analyst can't say for certain that an individual is foreign born or stationed in another country, but they are leaning in that direction, that makes the individual 'fair game' to learn more information about.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)or, im just pulled this statistic out of my ass, to be crude.
exit polls for example often have 90%+ confidence intervals.
have a look around on the net, find me a scientific study for that quotes confidence intervals of 51%, heck, find me one that quotes lower intervals than 80% as "fact" and ill eat my metaphorical hat.
and then we have the FISA court, ruling on matters that go to the heart of a democracy, where a guess is as good as being confident, oversight the american way?
randome
(34,845 posts)NSA employees, like most government employees, just want to do their jobs, not screw over as many people as possible.
If the organization's job is to guard against threats, whether terrorist, human trafficking, international child prostitution, etc., I would prefer that they be as vigilant as possible.
Stopping these kinds of crimes is, to me, more important than the chance that they might inadvertently capture someone's email in the U.S.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Monkie
(1,301 posts)but lies, no, not us, not our great nation...
over reach, no, not us...
warrants, always sir! always...
well sometimes we have a warrant, i guess..
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)All this shit--warrants, 51% confidence intervals, all of it--it's shit. It means NOTHING. Let me tell you why:
The database. They are all talking about getting info from a database. And no one is asking about the database.
The telecoms don't save our info for very long on their databases. They are not required to by law. I know this because, a couple of days ago, I saw a report where the NSA was talking about changing how they store data, and instead, just let the telecoms keep it for them. They said that they would have to get Congress to pass legislation that would require the telecoms to keep the data longer, because they need it available to them for at least five years.
What does that tell you? Someone's got a database from which they can access our communications, and it ain't the telecoms!
Obviously, the NSA has the database. And, from that database, they "collect" any information that they need to "collect" on any of us. Clapper made that very clear with his metaphor that "collect," to him, meant that he took the book off of the shelf and actually read it. What everyone is missing is that there is a library, with a bunch of books in it. There are your communications, all of them. And when the NSA wants to "collect" them, they pull your book off of the shelf and read it. THAT'S Clapper's definition of "collecting."
But they've already got all of the info. And they are storing it in their "library." They only "collect" it when they need to "target" you.
Now, suppose that you have a big mouth, and that people listen to you. Suppose you challenge the status quo in some way? It's time to "collect" your communications because now you're a "target." Suppose you say something that can be construed to be a threat to someone somewhere, somehow? It doesn't have to be a real threat; it might even be a joke. But, now, they've got something to use against you, to put you away. And they don't have to give you any of the communications that might have exculpatory evidence in them, that might show that your "threat" wasn't a threat at all. After all, they have control over what they "collect," and they're the only ones who can dig that far back in the database.
We are here, arguing over what the law says, what rules and policies they have in place, but we are missing the forest because of the trees.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)i tried to start this discussion on monday before the news leaked, but not many wanted to discuss it then.
parsing semantics:they cant access content without a warrant, but are they storing it all?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032631
i tried to start another discussion on thursday before the latest leak on a subject people dont seem ready to discuss either.
parsing semantics: it is the FBI's job to listen to you, not the NSA's
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023052865
you are right of course, about the trees and the forest, but most people are too scared of discussing the trees at this point in time.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)People don't seem to get it: So what if they have 51% confidence in someone's being foreign? So WHAT if they need or don't need a warrant? They HAVE IT ALL ALREADY. They can "collect" it anytime they want to, and target you, if you aren't compliant. They're sharing it with other law enforcement agencies, and it doesn't matter what oversight they have. Oversight won't do any good if they already have everything anyway.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)needs to be fully debated and vetted.
My sincerest compliments for some incisive analysis.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Taking steps to protect our privacy, by encrypting our email communications, automatically makes those communications suspect and allows the NSA to capture them.
Hopefully the NSA doesn't have the means to break the encryption.
kentuck
(111,037 posts)And to the Congress. Also, I think the Attorney General gave the NSA a green light to do whatever they thought was necessary. I think the Senate Intelligence Committee is old and incompetent. And I think this needs to be investigated by an independent 3-judge Court, not the FISA court. I think our government has failed us from the top to the bottom.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--rather than think the president, congress, AND the NSA are all acting in cahoots to trash the constitution.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)rather than that we have a "caretaker" president for a MIC gone wild.
I go back and forth. Mostly I just want it fixed and the only way to get it fixed is to have exposure. The attacks on those trying to expose this have been so vicious that it's hard not to think that it's even worse than what's been exposed so far.
Same thing happened with Iraq and trying to expose what was going on there with the Private Contractors, Pallets of Cash disappearing and a bunch of NeoCon's rich kids going over to Iraq to make money setting up a "Stock Market" shortly after the invasion. WaPo covered that and named names and there were people on DU at that time who chose to attack the messenger or mock. Many are still here with socks and other ways...but the posting style is so similar.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but many will try to bury it in the cellar. Yeah I remember that similar example all too well...
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)He had the dish on everyone in Washington. So everyone feared him and even Kennedy, who loathed him, kept him at FBI.
THe NSA has built the ability to spy on everyone. So everyone leaves them alone. Which allows them to get more dish on everyone. Just like Hoover.
Everyone has something to hide. The more honest you are the more minor transgressions can be wielded against you.
We gave them this power for many years and over many administrations. It has to stop.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Now we have a Press that is mostly tools/Infotainment or so afraid or bought off that it barely functions. I remember the McCarthy days as a little kid and it was a horrible time. Thought I'd never have to live through those days of approved "Lists" and "Commies under the Bed" & watch your neighbor.
randome
(34,845 posts)In my example above, what if you have an email received by a possible foreign terrorist? What if that email contains an attachment that is encrypted and came from someone in the U.S.?
Seems to me it would make sense to hold onto that attachment until you can verify what it is.
There are no foolproof laws. No law prevents anything. Rules and regulations try to fill in the gaps.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is to peel back the secrecy, COMPLETELY, on this program, investigate it thoroughly and publicly, and hold accountable anyone involved in any wrongdoing.
randome
(34,845 posts)On the other hand, law enforcement of any type, national or local, needs to keep some secrets. It's always a balancing act.
I could see a Church Commission type of investigation to see what can be revealed and what to keep secret. I can see publishing employment numbers, real budgets and verifying what kind of process is in place to prevent abuse.
All sorts of things that can be done that would still keep the NSA on the straight and narrow.
Of course if Congress did their jobs in the first place, their NSA briefings would have uncovered a lot of this and they would have taken actions to change the organization.
Maybe a Church Commission type of group outside of Congress?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
KoKo
(84,711 posts)investigation for probably decades. Also, aggressive Attorney Generals were considered bad news for both parties...hence Eric Holder's "holding back.'
The Church Commission also angered so many that they've been working to undo pieces of it for years.
I can't imagine anyone who could be fair and balanced to be on such an outside commission these days. Remember the "Revolving Door" is massive. They are all inbred with each other. We'd get another Simpson-Bowles or worse.
randome
(34,845 posts)There could still be more transparency from the NSA itself. It won't stop the paranoid from thinking their every move, word and thought is being collected but it might give us a more collective sense that the agency is doing as little 'damage' as possible.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
questionseverything
(9,644 posts)It gets run through the system, split into two parts, and stored until data-mining finds an "articulable suspicion", and another agency is alerted and seeks a FISA warrant. The content isn't looked at until a warrant is issued, we are told, but the content (acquired by the universal collection 2015 program) -- which must be minimized under 702 if not obtained with a proper FISA warrant -- is retained in a compartmentalized state. The content is isolated electronically (encrypted) from the metadata - that's how Bill Binney explained the process. The President also admits that's how the process works, here:
STEP 1: "2015" sweeps up the content and metadata into a database:
"You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place. So that database is sitting there," he said.
STEP 2: The NSA encrypts the content, stores the content, and profiling software start crawling through the metadata looking for links to foreign bad guys. NSA managers can deencrypt and put it back together again if the profiilng and datamining software shows there's an "articulable suspicion." FBI obtains a FISA warrant.
"Now, if the NSA through some other sources, maybe through the FBI, maybe through a tip that went to the CIA, maybe through the NYPD. Get a number that where there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this might involve foreign terrorist activity related to al-Qaeda and some other international terrorist actors.
Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out
STEP 3: NSA sends the reassembled data over to CIA or FBI:
A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.
////////////////
i did not write the above post it is a copy from another du'er but it is the best explaination i have seen and he wrote the first paragraph and the rest are the presidents words in the charlie rose interview....notice step 2...STEP 2: The NSA encrypts the content, stores the content, and profiling software start crawling through the metadata looking for links to foreign bad guys.............................so i read that it is all encrypted
we have gone from probable cause to reasonable suspicion to articulable suspion
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The excerpt is referring to exceptions that allow domestic communications to be retained. User encryption is listed as one.
questionseverything
(9,644 posts)• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of the "inadvertently acquired" communications.
If the NSA acquires an encrypted domestic communication, it is retained.
questionseverything
(9,644 posts)nsa is allowed to retain after they have encrypted them
on charlie rose the pres said,step 2.the nsa encrypts them(that i think was his excuse for "no content",afterall it is encrypted)
i am no lawyer but i see no language that says the nsa had to receive it in a encrypted form
i have seen peops on tv defending this and saying basically when law enforcement is looking for a needle in a haystack,this stored data is the haystack
and of course since they encrypted,they can unencrypt when they like
Catherina
(35,568 posts)http://boingboing.net/2013/06/20/more-nsa-leaks-how-the-nsa-be.html
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
kentuck
(111,037 posts)For more thorough reading later. I did notice that the first document was marked 'Top Secret" and the second document only "Secret"? I wonder why?
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It's the difference between "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available and "serious damage".
These documents are purely administrative and everything in them is either secret or unclassified except for one small part in Exhibit A.
This is the only thing in Exhibit A that's Top Secret. Notice that all of it is NoForn (No Foreigners) and restricted (SI)
foreign intelligence information acquired by any lawful means, such as electronic
surveillance, physical search, or the use of a pen register and trap or trace device, or
other information, reveals that the telephone number has been previously used by an
individual associated with a foreign power or foreign territory;
(TS//SI//NF) The NSA knowledge databases that would be used to satisfy this factor contain fused intelligence information concerning international terrorism culled from signals intelligence, human intelligence, law enforcement information and other sources. The information compiled in these databases is information that assists the signals intelligence system in effecting collection on intelligence targets. For example, a report produced by the CIA may include a fact that a known terrorist is using a telephone with a particular number. NSA would include that information in its knowledge in its knowledge databases.
I'm pretty sure it's because of the reference to means of collection, the pen registers & trap and trace devices. Both Bush and Obama had a lot of legal problems over the use of pen registers & trap and trace devices because they violate Federal law. They record information on all incoming and outgoing calls for a particular data line. These are what NSA was using to siphon "e-mail metadata and technical records of Skype calls from data links owned by AT&T, Sprint and MCI, which later merged with Verizon". There's speculation that it was over these that Goldsmith/Comey threatened to resign under Bush. Orin Kerr of Washington University Law Dept wrote something up about that here.
That's also the only place in the document were they mention the fused intelligence database which contains intelligence from multiple agencies within the Intelligence Community.
The ACLU has been very hot about the increasing use of pen registers & trap and trace devices and the DOJ repeatedly denied that they were using these without a warrant or in any inappropriate manner.
Federal law enforcement agents misled judges for years on what type of wiretaps they were carrying out when they requested permission for so-called “pen register” searches, an email obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveals.
Instead of collecting data on incoming and outgoing callers (among other general information), as “pen register” searches are intended to do, the ACLU said that agents commonly used a vehicle-mounted technology called the “stingray” that intercepts all nearby communications in order to pinpoint the location of a particular signal. The ACLU argues that these devices in effect resulted in a de facto wiretap, when that was not yet authorized.
A Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) filed by the ACLU returned a revealing email about the use of “stingrays” in law enforcement, showing the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California warning agents to be more specific about the type of technology employed in pen register requests.
“As some of you may be aware, our office has been working closely with the magistrate judges in an effort to address their collective concerns regarding whether a pen register is sufficient to authorize the use of law enforcement’s WIT technology (a box that simulates a cell tower and can be placed inside a van to help pinpoint an individual’s location with some specificity) to locate an individual,” the email explained. “It has recently come to my attention that many agents are still using WIT technology in the field although the pen register application does not make that explicit.”
“While we continue work on a long term fix for this problem, it is important that we are consistent and forthright in our pen register requests to the magistrates,” the email concludes.
“In other words, the federal government was routinely using stingray technology in the field, but failing to ‘make that explicit’ in its applications to the court to engage in electronic surveillance,” ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye wrote in an advisory. “When the magistrate judges in the Northern District of California finally found out what was happening, they expressed ‘collective concerns,’ according to the emails.”
...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/28/aclu-email-reveals-feds-misled-judges-to-abuse-wiretapping-powers/
And this just in, press release from the ACLU, is part of the serious damage
Agency Retains Purely Domestic Communications Without Warrants, Documents Show
June 20, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, [email protected]
NEW YORK – The government is engaged in warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans' international communications, according to secret FISA Court documents released today by The Guardian. Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director, made the following comments about the latest revelations:
"After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, we worried that the NSA would use the new authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' telephone calls and emails. These documents confirm many of our worst fears. The 'targeting' procedures indicate that the NSA is engaged in broad surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"The 'minimization' procedures that supposedly protect Americans' constitutional rights turn out to be far weaker than we imagined they could be. For example, the NSA claims the authority to collect and disseminate attorney-client communications – and even, in some circumstances, to turn them over to Justice Department prosecutors. The government also claims the authority to retain Americans' purely domestic communications in certain situations."
ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo said:
"Collectively, these documents show indisputably that the legal framework under which the NSA operates is far too feeble, that existing oversight mechanisms are ineffective, and that the government's surveillance policies now present a serious and ongoing threat to our constitutional rights. The release of these documents will help inform a crucial public debate that should have taken place years ago."
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/nsa-claims-broad-authority-monitor-americans-international-calls-and-emails
This is something where we'll need to trust the ACLU and not any of the self-annointed legal experts telling everyone to move on, nothing to see here, it's all legal.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
AzDar
(14,023 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058091
NYT: Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058210
Monkie
(1,301 posts)better than nixon?
better than what exactly?
kentuck
(111,037 posts)Would be my guess also.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)People born of an American parent and a parent with foreign citizenship (maybe also dual citizenship) who were born in another country.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)If they're contacting, or being contacted from, overseas they're fair game, even if a reasonable suspicion. And everything else falls under the analyst's idea of *reasonable*, or is/was/will there be a crime committed, is it encrypted.... If they're communication in a foreign language, that could be reasonable suspicion. So many loopholes, enough to fly jumbo jets through.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Thankfully there are, for example, Canadian sympathizers of the massive surveillance program, to try to keep people like me in check.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It's bad enough the idiot tools on the Right try to call Obama either a Nazi or a Socialist (they never can get anything straight) but there is now a persistent attack of Democrats on this Board as being "Racist/Haters."
Since when should Democrats be acting exactly like the RW Repugs with the name calling?
Who are they and Why? Some are Trolls and others are Disruptors....and one wonders if there is money involved with others.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)No doubt some are paid disrupter's ...maybe even some long time posters. It's getting harder to tell since some in the Dem party has moved so far to the right ...and x repukes have signed up.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I heard he once drank milk straight out of the carton!
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)This isn't even news since we already knew this from watching testimony. With the data in the PRISM program there is no sure way to know where the communication originates which means some foreign data is inadvertently weeded out while some American data is inadvertently included but the preponderance is foreign. Yes this data contains content but it still requires a court order to access the data and that means a specific key value and not some kind of data mining operation for a specific word such as "jihad" (besides, true terrorists use code so "recipe" means "bomb ingredients", etc.).
It just drives me nuts to see people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill all of the time. Stop this nonsense. Clean up the act DU.
Again, this data is from the improperly unsecure private PC network and not from the databases in question, which appears to be quite secure.
randome
(34,845 posts)...I wonder how his word about anything can justify this hair-on-fire maneuver.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698
He gave us no evidence of his claims and his resume is a lie. So I'm with you, why should we be upset?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)I wouldn't think someone with a GED could do more than scrub the floors at CIA so I think we need to see how corners got cut at CIA in order for them to hire Snowden. Did his dad pull strings, for instance. Snowden only worked his recent job for 3 months so it makes one wonder if he was some kind of mole all along. Who, then, was his sponsor?
randome
(34,845 posts)Which has nothing to do with pressing for more transparency and less secrecy in the NSA, in case anyone wants to accuse me of being an 'authoritarian'.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)feel better. For me you are a kind of barometer of how things are on the left. Does that make sense to you at all?
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Monkie
(1,301 posts)its wearing thin, say something of substance or be quiet, real people are talking about real issues and your whining is making it hard for me to hear the adults speak.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Who do think you are to be lecturing me on this subject. You are the one that has nothing of substance to say. And just who is the adult here. I will not be silenced.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)i'm sorry, i did not reply to your post i think you are mistaken
I now see that you replied to a comment sandwiched between replies of mine so my bad. But the tone of your post still sucks because the "good German" comment is still a personal insult and this site frowns on posts like this so I would vote to block it if I was on jury duty.
will you please stop you character assassination and the "good german" act
its wearing thin, say something of substance or be quiet, real people are talking about real issues and your whining is making it hard for me to hear the adults speak.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)but im being called a racist for having questions.
and you might not have noticed but i think that was a pretty accurate description of the behaviour that poster was showing, running around all the threads relating to the surveillance, and saying its all fine there is nothing wrong because "X", and keeping moving the goalpost with each new leak, always there to say "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" or words to that effect. which makes the description of the "good german" pretty accurate if you ask me.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You actually believe the NSA when they tell you "We're copying all that data, but we promise we'll only look at it when we have a warrant?"
You actually believe the organization that has lied to the American people over and over and over again?
Say, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)violating the laws: Oops, sorry, we just made a mistake!
Change? Who knew it meant this kind of change??
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Tell an officer "I didn't mean to drive 65 in a 50 zone." and he's still gonna give you the ticket.
Tell a judge "I didn't mean to have so many drinks before I got in the car." and he's still gonna convict you for DUI.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)We need more straight-forward legalese
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'right' in defense of the surveillance of 'all citizens' they are moving closer to being able to dispense with the pretenses.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
TRUST US.
We wouldn't lie to you,
again.
