HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NSA admits to listening w...

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 08:37 PM

NSA admits to listening without warrants.


Headline on Cnet:

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants



National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

Hmm. Warrantless surveillance. Any apologies to Greenwald or Snowden, yet?

BTW, the article did include this:

AT&T and other telecommunications companies that allow the NSA to tap into their fiber links receive absolute immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution, thanks to a law that Congress enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012. It's a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act.


In case you forgot the surprise the day the Senate approved that law, then Senator Obama voted for it, leaving his supporters at the time stunned. I know I was. But we all forgave him. Most have probably even forgiven and forgotten. But I didn't forget.

I think that was his signal to the telecoms and the intel agencies that he was on their side. I can't think of anything else that could have been.

17 replies, 2664 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply NSA admits to listening without warrants. (Original post)
caseymoz Jun 2013 OP
struggle4progress Jun 2013 #1
Tx4obama Jun 2013 #2
morningfog Jun 2013 #3
ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #5
DevonRex Jun 2013 #4
DirkGently Jun 2013 #6
DevonRex Jun 2013 #13
reusrename Jun 2013 #16
LineReply .
blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #7
Tx4obama Jun 2013 #8
Marr Jun 2013 #14
DirkGently Jun 2013 #15
L0oniX Jun 2013 #9
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #10
Hydra Jun 2013 #11
neverforget Jun 2013 #17
Coyotl Jun 2013 #12

Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 08:48 PM

1. Need more details about this alleged disclosure by Nadler

... Nadler .. disclosed this week .. is a bit nebulous for my tastes, especially since nobody else seems to be reporting it, and I can't find anything like that on his website

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 09:03 PM

2. Sounds like Nadler didn't hear what was said in the briefly correctly


A judge has to issue a Court Order for wiretaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 09:09 PM

3. Hahaha.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 09:49 PM

5. How did you come to the conclusion that Nadler

didn't hear correctly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 09:37 PM

4. And cnet very carefully didn't report Mueller's response. And lied about Feinstein.

Curious, that.

It also puts something in quotes that Feinstein did not say to reporters - not to give that meaning. Here is what she actually said.

"To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,” Feinstein told reporters. “Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it’s one number or two numbers. That’s all you have… if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.”
(PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)
Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, “that’s my understanding.”
So even though the NSA or other intelligence agencies must return to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get authorization to eavesdrop on a call, they do not need to ask the court to search the “metadata” that NSA collects from telecom providers. Officials must only conclude for themselves that they have a “reasonable, articulable” suspicion about someone and then they may query their database."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-nsa-92760.html#ixzz2WL4E0q00

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:18 PM

6. Bit far saying they "lied" about anything.


Cnet isn't exactly a political rag. If you think they got something wrong, say that. Don't pretend it's a plot.

What we're most likely seeing is the upcoming argument about parsing and interpretation and who gets to interpret the law.

Which is exactly why we've seen the fierce opposition to discussing any of it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 11:12 PM

13. That's why

I'm surprised at the reporting. I knew right away it was off because I had read what Senator Feinstein had said very carefully. And I had compared it to how people interpreted it, claiming it contradicted what Kieth Alexander had said, which I also read carefully. her statement didn't at all contradict his. Unless, of course a reporter writes a contradictory sentence and then sticks a couple of words (which don't support the reporter's point) the person may have said (at any time) in the middle. It's clever but not factual.

I am not saying Nadler didn't say this. I'm not saying he got it wrong if he did say it. But given the issues I mentioned, I will wait for either a statement from him or another news agency to do some original reporting on it - not just referencing this lot - since he has been unavailable for comment, has not tweeted about it, posted on his Congressional page about it or on Facebook.

You might find this interesting. Found this today. It's something I've been telling people to look up. Finally someone has written about it.

"Tech More: Edward Snowden NSA PRISM 60 Minutes
If Edward Snowden Had Watched '60 Minutes' In High School He Could Still Be Living In Hawaii With His Beautiful Girlfriend"
NICHOLAS CARLSON JUN. 15, 2013, 10:51 AM


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/60-minutes-reported-nsa-spying-in-2000-2013-6#ixzz2WLS79ZVN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 09:45 AM

16. I read the link and I can't make any sense of it. The author is incoherent.

 

He claims that the book "1984" got it wrong because people are dying in our "real war." He obviously never read the works of the prophet Orwell. The whole article makes no sense at all to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:37 PM

7. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:49 PM

8. Muller and Nadler had the following...


... exchange where Nadler asks him about this. Nadler said that it was his understanding that analysts can listen in. Mueller claims that is not his understanding of the NSA program. Nadler may be mistaken. Here's video of the testimony Thursday from C-span. The exchange begins 45 - 46 minutes into the testimony:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1


Text above is from Roselma: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023024565#post92


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 11:22 PM

14. Nadler was referencing a separate, secret committee meeting, wasn't he?

 

He was saying that things were described to him in the private meeting in just the opposite way from how Mueller was describing it in the public meeting. That's how I understood the exchange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:16 AM

15. Yes. Question now is

... exactly what was described to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:51 PM

9. They admitted this without being tortured? WOW!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:57 PM

10. I wish that people would stop shouting about Liberals supporting this....

 

I am a classic Liberal and I never did.

That doesn't mean I didn't know the government was doing it. It does a LOT of things I don't like in the name of preserving the old order of things.

What's funny is they STILL act like it ain't happening unless they admit it in a press conference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:58 PM

11. And there we have it

And the spinners can only claim that he's not understanding what he heard.

Why not? This is what the Bush Admin did, and the Obama Admin seems not to have a problem with anything in any meaningful way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 09:49 AM

17. and Bush holdover Mueller is the good guy

in this exchange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 11:06 PM

12. Let me guess, all analyst hirees were chosen by Rove and Gonzales

 

from recent Liberty University graduates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread