General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor The Record: The NSA Spied on All Americans. It Is a Fact.
In clear contradiction of the plain meaning of the 4th amendment of our constitution. And they lied to Congress, and to us little people, about doing it.
And I'm really glad that I know they've been doing this. Because I think those are awful things to do, and that sunlight is an excellent disinfectant.
I'm also glad that President Obama is happy to have a conversation about this: I presume this means he was going to tell us, anyway, so we could have this conversation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Yeah, I get it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The Executive Branch has broken the law by spying on American citizens. They have lied to Congress, lied to the Courts, and lied to the People. It could have been stopped with a 30 second phone call, or the stroke of a pen... but wasn't done so. That is inexcusable.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)this will shortly be taken out off all three branches of government's hands. It's like the J. Edgar Hoover days on steroids.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)Go look at the Wikileaks info. The database was collected from private firms. But it could only be accessed under strict rules. It did NOT include names, addresses, etc. If the quesry was found to involve American Citizens, it was sealed and sent to the FBI who could only access the info with a court-ordered warrant.
Further, Clapper did NOT "lie" to Congress. The question involved "people", and as described above they did NOT track any American individual. It could be argued that Clapper misunderstood the question. If so, then he made a mistake which he tried to clarify in the letter that so many claim to be proof that he lied to Congress. In fact, he did NOT.
elias49
(4,259 posts)
villager
(26,001 posts)Why am I sadly not surprised?
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Lol...c'mon. 2+2=5 with these people.
Google and ATT and every internet provider collect your information and store it for years that's not a problem but when they give it to the Government for permanent storage because they are going to destroy it then it becomes a problem?
villager
(26,001 posts)I would beg to differ.
Even more so given the insidious partnerships between the alleged "public" and "private" sectors in this country, to boot.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Secondly, why was any of it collected at all? That right there is unconstitutional.
Would you give the FBI your file cabinet and computers but then only give them the key/password if they got a warrant? No, you wouldn't.
As to you defending Clapper, well that's just pathetic. Why do you hate America?
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)that so many here linked to.
Secondly, it's not unconstitutional because the technology didn't exist when the constitution was written.
I wouldn't give my info to the FBI, but almost all of us give it freely to 3rd parties who can give it to anyone they wish - including the FBI and/or the NSA. Thirdly, do you even know what a database is?
As to me "defending" Clapper, I notice that you didn't present any evidence that he "lied". Do you have any? Can you refute my statement?
The NSA and James Clapper have done nothing illegal. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that it is immoral. I think the laws should be changed. But before they can be, we have to have a serious and objective discussion. Misrepresenting the case isn't productive.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)It only applies to horses and buggies? Please. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you use that as an argument.
Why are you asking if I know what a database is?
Clapper:
On March 12, James Clapper, director of national intelligence, testified at an open congressional hearing. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, asked him whether the National Security Agency collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”
His answer: “No sir.” Then he added: “Not wittingly.”
It was a lie, as everyone now knows from the articles about the N.S.A.’s data-mining program.
Mr. Wyden knew it wasn’t true at the time, since he is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is privy to secret briefings from people like, well, Mr. Clapper.
On Sunday, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Mr. Clapper about the exchange.
“First, I have great respect for Senator Wyden,” Mr. Clapper said, using a Washington code phrase to indicate that he has no respect for the senator. “I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked ‘when are you going to start–stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is, meaning not answerable necessarily, by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least untruthful manner, by saying, ‘No.’”
Mr. Clapper further explained his least-untruthiness by saying he thought Mr. Wyden was asking whether the N.S.A. was actually listening to phone conversations (which Mr. Wyden clearly was not). “Going back to my metaphor, what I was thinking of is looking at the Dewey Decimal numbers of those books in the metaphorical library,” he said. “To me collection of U.S. persons data would mean taking the books off the shelf, opening it up and reading it.”
WASHINGTON, July 2 (UPI) -- Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is "deeply troubled" by the top U.S. intelligence figure's public lie about domestic spying on Americans, the senator's office said.
Wyden said National Intelligence Director James Clapper's office within days admitted privately Clapper lied in public testimony at an open congressional hearing March 12, but Clapper refused to acknowledge this formally to the committee for 14 weeks.
The New York Times reported June 11 Wyden knew immediately Clapper's testimony wasn't true, because Wyden is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which receives secret briefings from top intelligence officials, including Clapper.
But Clapper formally corrected the record only 11 days ago, when disclosures by rogue former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden prompted weeks of intense public pressure.
Wyden asked Clapper March 12 if the NSA collects "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans."
Clapper answered, "No sir," then added, "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."
---
In a June 21 letter first reported by The Washington Post Monday, Clapper admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee his answer March 12 was incorrect.
What the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. It is only legal because Obama pushed to legalize it. It was illegal when BushCo did it. Obama has expanded the program.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)what a database is or how difficult it is to access database info.
As for your history of the laws, go back and read your history.
As for Clapper:
Robert Litt, the general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has written to the New York Times to deny the allegation that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress about the collection of bulk phone records by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Citing an editorial entitled “Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower” which was published on Thursday, Litt wrote that the newspaper “repeats the allegation that James R Clapper Jr … 'lied' to Congress about the collection of bulk telephony metadata” and added: “As a witness to the relevant events and a participant in them, I know that allegation is not true.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/clapper-lie-congress-nsa-national-intelligence-counsel
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)"...what a database is or how difficult it is to access database info. ".
You somehow believe that for a database worker, extracting meaningful information from a database is somehow difficult? That is a naive, ignorant, and just plain odd assertion.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Typing is an arcane form of high magic that only a very few high priests and priestesses learn how to do,
It is clear you do not understand the intricacies of high magic or else you would not think database user software isn't built with a front end designed to be nearly impossible to master just like most other software.
Why, just to summon this page from the mist of webs I had to sacrifice two goats and poor the blood on the internet tubes! Stop being so ignorant!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)at this whole subthread. Your reply was priceless!!! 
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
There are some who call me... Tim.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts) 
lark
(23,099 posts)Clapper even admitted that what he said was untrue. So now Clapper doesn't know what he said?
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)It's almost not even worth responding. In fact I won't. Anyone who defends Clapper and tries to spin his admitted lies into something else is so fundamentally disingenuous as to be worth of nothing more substantive than a response of scorn.
So consider yourself scorned. And ignored.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Wikileaks may be submitted anonymously by anyone on the Internet, but released by someone affiliated with Wikileaks at their editorial discretion.
Wikipedia may be edited by anyone on the Internet.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)of NSA defenders.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He wrote his own version to fit his needs. Yep, the Fourth Amendment of the US was followed, some just read what they want to hear.
bl968
(360 posts)When private firms are contracted to provide this information to the government then they are government agents or actors under the law. So even if the NSA contracted with private companies those companies are bound by the same restrictions that prevent the government from undertaking those actions.
G_j
(40,367 posts)yes, they appeared to be deliberate and meant to avert the truth. 
George II
(67,782 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Untruth = Lie
Why are you so invested in damage control for Clapper at this point?
The History has already been written.
Clapper LIED under OATH to the Senate Committee,
and walked away laughing.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)you want but don't assert your beliefs as carved in stone FACTS. Your post would be OK if you just prefaced it with "IMO".
clarice
(5,504 posts)Does NSA pay you to spew such garbage?
truth2power
(8,219 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Bo took off with 'em and they haven't been seen since.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'm sure your in this for the long haul, me too. Know that there will always be denier, apologizers, and cheerleaders and for every assessment there will always be rebuttal. I'm sure that's healthy but for me, after a while can be discouraging.
How do you do it? This place is crazy! How do you stay in the fight? I've been restricting my access because non denying assholes on this site and have been much happier.
Love ya Manny. Whatever it is, bottle it and sell it.
Peace.
-p
PS.. have you noticed a flood of posters roughly 200 to 400 posts recently getting very animated in DU? If you sit back for a while you can see patterns going on here that you can contrast from the early days of DU. It's cool and weird and makes me very uncomfortable. Me thinks we've got rodents.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's a coordinated government effort to plant operatives on interweb forumz.
Thank gawd we have people like you who are on the case....
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)My post was about govt operatives on the interwebz.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)answer to any post. Eventually, it's bound to match up with something.
Repetition, and all that....
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But seriously... I noticed that you've been scarce! Bad!
<weird stuff: on>
The universe is a big stage and we all play our parts. It's just who we are. Getting angry at silly people for being silly is no more helpful than getting angry at a baby for wetting its diaper. It's what they do.
So I try not to get pissed, and usually succeed. (But that doesn't mean I have to be cuddly. Cuddly just doesn't work sometimes.)
All we can do is to work at it, be smart about it, and try to make a difference. And have fun. Other than that, what's going to happen is going to happen.
<weird stuff: off>
The good news is that things are basically improving in our party and on DU. 12 years ago, Elizabeth Warren couldn't have been elected senator let alone become the widely-acknowledged soul of Democrats. Back then, Larry Summers was given vast powers to #%^* with us, instead of being cast off in flames by Senate Liberals last year.
DU has taken on a Thunder Dome-ish air in the past year or so, but in part I think that's from Third-Way dead-enders lashing out with strange arguments and personal attacks, because they've got nothing else. But their numbers are now small. They used to be large. We're winning.
Next step is to win the world outside of DU.
Excelsior!
freebrew
(1,917 posts)many of us(it seems) are in agreement with you. Some of those 3rd-partiers must get paid to be here all day.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)He told us they would try not to be so obvious about it and that the 4th amendment don't apply when you are really scared of the terrorist...and we have to agree because it is a democratic administration and the GOP boogie men are waiting in the wings to do worse.
So case closed, now go back to watching your TV and stop thinking about it.
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)To night's episode is right in this topic. AWESOME!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)especially the 9th amend and how it effects all other rights granted by the Constitution.
Its not a fact until a high court rules it so til then that is just your opinion,,,,
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Most DUers, including the OP, have no idea how our government works.
Screaming that something is unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.
Although, it is amusing to watch.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I've said in the past metadata phone record collection is overkill, but I never said it was unconstitutional.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)That's kind of how it reaches the high court in the first place......
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They ruled phone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to the phone company. To the person has no right to privacy regarding that. Just like you have no right to privacy over what you ordered at a local restaurant.
To actually have a right to privacy regarding phone metadata, we need a new law. Then it can be protected similar to medical records - which are run-of-the-mill business records, except they have a laws regarding disclosure.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Right, agreed. In 1979 we had no idea about things like text messaging, smart phones and the complexity of the internet. You can build much more of a character profile now with meta data, at least that's what Joe Biden said.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)All I need is a last name, and an address or phone number - current or not. With that, I can buy a report on you.
That report will have every phone number you have ever had.
It will have every address you have ever lived at.
It will have every job you have ever had.
There's a very good chance it will have your salary history.
It will have your entire credit history - even the stuff that is "too old" for your credit report.
It will have the first 5 digits of your SSN.
It will have the names, addresses and phone numbers of your immediate family - past and present.
And so on, and so on.
The problem isn't just phone metadata.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)that 3 credit reporting agencies have on each of us now.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Go pull your credit report. Everything is younger than 7 years. They also will not have nearly as many addresses and phone numbers.
But more importantly, to get a credit report you have to have the full SSN and a recorded/signed permission to pull a credit report.
As I said, you just need a last name and one address or phone number to get all that information. I do not need your permission.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It was total disrespect for an anonymous Pro-NSA/Surveillance State poster on the internet.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Like I said upthread, a good number of DUers have no idea how our government functions.
You are right. The info belongs to the phone companies. New leglistation is needed, but then again many DUers think the President is dictator and and create laws on his own.
It's really funny to watch.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Although it's become less funny by the minute. Maybe we can talk about Benghazi instead? 
This NSA obsession isn't healthy for anyone and won't change anything. Let it go, Manny. You'll feel much better, promise.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I agree with him.
Who WAS that guy?
He would have made a good Vice-President or something.
think
(11,641 posts)sorry...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Biden, like everyone else, is free to have an opinion.
Problem is that opinion doesn't make the 1979 ruling disappear.
Once again, we need Congress to pass a new law so that we are not covered by the 1979 ruling, and we can get some privacy from corporations.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Some people's opinions ARE worth more than others,
and you have NO creds at all,
so yours isn't worth much.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)but hey, whatever works for your current argument, right?
Let's say you're right, and the NSA stops the phone metadata program because of it. Got privacy? FUCK NO. Anyone willing to buy it can get your phone metadata. It's for sale on the open market.
Or is that OK? Like Snowden, do you think it's perfectly acceptable for corporations to spy on us?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)There would have been a conversation but it would've been in hearings on committees in Washington not in the mainstream for profit hyper tabloid media who actually is using it to foster apathy in the voting population. Oh and a couple of guys are getting sickeningly rich off of it.
The fallout? Section 215 of the Patriot Act will be, yet again, reauthorized. The whole "revelations" that we've seen and heard about will have fallen on deaf ears.
Time to write a book and cash in too.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)And he did it without leaking classified data that has had little effect overall and if anything has created a vacuum.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Exaggeration limits credibility.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Just wishful thinking doesnt make it so.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)That's all that you need to know......
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and it's covered by a 1979 SCOTUS decision.
If there are tons of NSA programs spying on US persons, how come Snowden and company only leaked one that "spies" on US persons?
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I wonder what color the sky is in that world...
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)....
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Is that Walter Matthau? I love his work.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
JEB
(4,748 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)up there, that's pretty much the only color you see.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Unfortunately for your argument, there were only two situations where NSA gathered data on US persons without a warrant. At least, there have been only two situations that have leaked so far.
1) Situations similar to the "jealous ex", where someone spied out of vengeance. In the situations that have leaked, the person doing the spying was caught and punished, though the punishments have not been leaked.
2) Phone metadata. Unfortunately for your claim, there's an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision that applies quite nicely.
Essentially, the SCOTUS ruled that phone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to the phone companies. As a result, do you not have a right to privacy regarding phone metadata, and a warrant is not needed before collecting it. Just like you don't have a right to privacy regarding your phone number itself. For example, even if your phone number is unlisted, it's displayed to the owner of an 800 number when you call. "Unlisted" only counts for us proles.
Other situations that leaked were not US persons, and non-US persons do not have any Constitutional rights.
But here's why you are being really, really, really dumb on this: The NSA isn't the end of the problem.
The phone companies already sell your phone metadata to anyone with a checkbook. After all, it isn't private.
So let's pretend your argument was actually true, and as a result you shut down the NSA programs. You still have no privacy. The phone companies will go right on selling your data to anyone with a checkbook.
What we need is a law to stop both the NSA and the phone companies. But if you convince everyone that your argument is correct, we do not get that law - You erroneously convinced people that stopping the NSA stops the privacy violation.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)This allows them the ability to retroactively go back in time and figure out really important details.
But I agree that they are as egregious as corporate data miners. The biggest irony? The suggested fix that is being proffered is that the NSA lets the corporations do all the data holding and analysis and if they find something they let the NSA know and the NSA gets the warrant to look at it.
Talk about almighty corporate power, damn.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Exactly.
Do what Manny wants, and the problem gets worse.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)There will not be an actual fix until the Executive branch is led by a person who adheres to true Democratic principles.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And you never talk about anyone other than the NSA.
Wrong again.
The fix has to come from Congress.
Your focus on the Executive branch also indicates you only think the NSA is a problem.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The other stuff you write about is bad, but it's small potatoes compared to, say, being waterboarded, nearly drowned in a tub of ice water, and/or being held in solitary confinement for decades. That's the kind of stuff the Executive branch does, as we know. I don't think even Facebook would do that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can be sure that when Manny's arguments start to go south, the subject will quickly change.
Suddenly, NSA collecting phone metadata is the CIA torturing people.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)and then you claim *I* moved the goalposts.
Lovely.
Have a good night.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The point where he declares himself correct no matter what, and then announces he is abandoning the argument.
Because when one's argument makes sense and is going well, one usually flees.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ain't my thing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They show several nice reasonable responses to comments like "did I propose a fix" and your greater fear of government than corporations.
Problem is all those topics weren't working well for you - you stopped responding. Instead, you leapt to CIA torture, and now play like you're so insulted.
Which means we've hit stage 3 of Manny's argument going South. You'll reply a few more times about how terrible I am. Then we'll hit Stage 4 when you stop replying. Followed by Stage 5, when you make a new OP and the whole cycle begins anew.
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)Care to offer your own solution, or do you think everything is hunkey-dorey as-is?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)But you know what's even worse about the fix? Guys like Snowden think that corporate data mining is OK because, get this, we don't have to do business with corporations, it's all voluntary.
Yeah, Snowden? How about that last Facebook settlement? $20 pitiful million dollars. For 1.3 billion users.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)In IL, they literally have the right to do so. Debt collection laws in IL are rather amazing. Companies get to throw IL residents in jail without really proving the debt is valid.
In other states, it requires a little more effort on their part. Such as destroying your credit, getting you fired, and then seizing your assets. That car you paid off? They'll get around proving the car loan is valid real soon now™, but they get to repossess the car now.
It doesn't have to have bars on the windows to be a prison.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)By obtaining and holding the meta data.
What we don't know is what else they are capable of obtaining and holding.
Of course what they are capable of, is, as far as can be, practically infinite. Limited only by computer space and time taken to collect the data.
So, your excuses are no good.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If only there wasn't some part of my post discussing a particular 1979 SCOTUS decision. Then you wouldn't be lying.
So if they are spying on everyone, how come Greenwald, Snowden and the rest haven't managed to leak anything beyond phone metadata and jealous ex'es? You'd think they'd have managed to cover a single additional program if the NSA is doing so much spying.
Yet everything else they've leaked is against non-US persons. Oh, I will admit you have to read their stories very carefully to find that targeting information. It's usually one sentence 10-or-so paragraphs in.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There has lots of info from the gang about what they can and are doing. Even the senators have said as much. But the heads of NSA have gone to congress and told lies and here you are. Who to believe?
First you admit they are collecting data on everyone and then you say.... well fuck if I know what you are saying, but it can't be believed, that's for sure.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There is lots of info about what they can do.
There is lots of info about what they are doing.
The problem is 99% of the "can do" is not being used on US persons - you have no right to privacy around phone metadata, and that's the only leaked program that hit US persons. Heck, I can buy your phone metadata right now.
The problem with attempting a "gotcha" is you have to actually be clever to pull it off.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How come you always support the establishment?
You support the nuke establishment against all reason, and now you are sitting there telling me that the NSA is capable of doing more, but all they do is what they can buy from AT&T.
You really think Rove didn't listen in on Democrat's phone calls? Because, you know, the present system is the Rovian nightmare. Why do you strive to protect it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Let's go back and re-read the last paragraph of the first post where you replied to me.
I'm saying we need Congress to pass new laws in order to protect our privacy. That isn't supporting the establishment. That's saying we need to change the establishment to support us. And there's tons of "big data" entities that will fight us.
No, what I do not support is the bullshit you smear about them. For example, according to your posts, North America was supposed to become an uninhabitable wasteland a year ago.
When that didn't happen, you started claiming that all life in the Pacific would be dead...6 months ago.
Lying your ass off is not being "anti-establishment". It's lying your ass off.
Well, there's this guy named Snowden. So far, he's only leaked that the NSA did what they can buy from AT&T.
So where's that second program? Why are Greenwald, Snowden and everyone else not leaking it?
You'd think if there were all these other programs spying on US persons, he might have leaked a second one that spied on US persons. Btw, just so you are aware, "US Person" is not the same thing as US citizen. It means someone subject to US jurisdiction. Which means it should be easier to find abuses:
Let's say the NSA is listening to all the phone calls of Mr. Evil-doer. Mr. Evil-doer then travels to Guam. To follow the law, the NSA has to either stop listening while he's in Guam, or they have to get a warrant. Now, I'd imagine that it would be pretty easy for the NSA to claim this kind of thing "slipped through the cracks" all the the time in order for them to keep spying anyway. Yet Snowden and company have not leaked evidence of such a program.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You just made several accusations about me and some posts. None of which is true. But that's par for the course with you. Links? Crickets?
You've heard of Hoover. The old time FBI chief who used info to blackmail.
Ever hear about Sen. Frank Church, who warned us what government could and WOULD do?
How about the Nazis who compiled info on the Jewish people?
All you have is your words here, and we can can see you just say stuff that has no real meaning. Hang it up dude. You got nothing but cheap words.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Just hit that "My Posts" tab and scroll back a ways.
You claimed Fukushima would make the West Coast of the US dead, possibly all of North America. When pointed out that the actual measurements did not indicate that, and that Japan would have to be dead first, you stuck in there like a good trooper.
You claimed that disappearance of one fish stock in the Pacific was due to Fukushima, and that all life in the Pacific will follow. When pointed out that the same stocks collapsed in the 1960s, you hung in there and continued to claim Fukushima is the only possible cause.
Now, I could provide links, but I already did that back when you made these claims. They showed that you were utterly wrong, but you still hung in there. So why, exactly, should I bother digging through your post history for you when it won't change a thing?
Ever hear about Sen. Frank Church, who warned us what government could and WOULD do?
How about the Nazis who compiled info on the Jewish people?
I'm not saying it's impossible for them to break the law. I'm saying no such lawbreaking has leaked, yet.
So why haven't Snowden, Greenwald and the others leaked any additional programs? They leaked one program that is legal thanks to the 1979 SCOTUS. Why not leak program number two? If there really is such a vast swath of illegal spying, why are Snowden, Greenwald and the others keeping it secret?
I eagerly await your next post insisting you are as pure as Jesus, and that evil done in the 1600s demonstrates that the NSA is spying today.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Anyone can see you are just exaggerating. The question is: why?
The nuke point is, which you have not refuted at all, is that you claiming nukes were safe, there would be no problems. You were wrong every time.
And now, here, you say they can spy on everyone, they have collected data on everyone, but as far as you know, they are not collecting any more data that what they can get from AT&T, just like you can.
As for the whistleblowers not telling you everything... they really don't want to, they'd rather the government change its ways without all the beans spilled. Hell, some people already want to knock them off for what they have spilled. You can even look at it as they are blackmailing the US. And keeping the only insurance they have, up their sleeves.
No, this convo is you saying here is nothing to worry about, that history will not repeat and that Senator Church was just scared, and there is no evidence of them breaking any laws.
What do you think about Chelsea Manning? How many lies and criminal acts did she uncover?
You can have the last word... but yeah, check my journal, lots there about FUKU.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And as already mentioned, you have your own version of reality. Links do not change it.
For example, there's this thread. In which you claim a die off that started in the 1980s was caused by Fukushima. Links showing you were wrong were provided. Including a link to the marine biologist you cited in your OP explaining it has nothing to do with Fukushima.
But that doesn't fit with your reality, so links don't change it.
Nope.
You know, if you think it's so important to find links to posts to show that your characterization is correct, you'd think you'd actually provide a link. Of course, that would interfere with your version of reality.
My entire point is climate change is far deadlier than nuclear power. By largely abandoning nuclear power in the 1970s, we saved thousands of lives. In return, we killed and will be killing hundreds of millions, thanks to all the coal and oil we used instead.
That's not a good trade, even though nuclear accidents are far more spectacular than coal mine collapses, and far faster to develop than droughts and sea level rise.
Which is why they didn't leak any programs at all.
Oh wait, they did leak a program. Golly, it looks like this argument makes no sense at all - leaking two programs would be about as difficult as leaking one program. Yet they didn't leak two.
In your reality, or the one the rest of us live in? 'Cause I strongly suspect you'll claim the "Collateral Murder" video shows a crime.
Problem is it does not. It's a war zone. We get to blow the shit out of people as soon as we suspect the target is an enemy, and the "Collateral Murder" people helpfully point out the first group had someone who was armed. Any responders that don't have a giant red cross on their vehicle get to be labeled "enemy" too.
The "Collateral Murder" video shows why going to war is bad. Everything in it is legal.
Perhaps you could tell us what crime was exposed when Manning leaked that we know Castro's favorite brand of cigar?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)When is the last time Verizon put out a drag net and lined up everyone for a crime victim to identify?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And I'd argue that the commercial violations of our privacy are far, far more invasive. Largely because there are zero regulations, whereas the government actually has regulations.
In fact, the phone metadata program only exists because there are zero regulations on corporate data collections - the only reason the data is there for the NSA to collect is the phone company is abusing your privacy.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I've been fighting against that since the 90's.
I disagree that holding the NSA accountable for their bad acts will make the problem worse. The argument that we shouldn't shine a spotlight on the NSA's actions and demand accountability, because corporations also collect information for different purposes, is not valid.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The 1979 SCOTUS decision means the metadata program is legal.
Every other program leaked so far has been against non-US persons, which means they're legal - even if you're Chancellor of Germany, you don't have Constitutional rights*.
That leaves us with no "bad acts" in the legal sense.
*(As long as she wasn't in US territory or in US custody while the monitoring was going on)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The 1979 decision applied to the wiretap of a single individual who was a suspect in an investigation. Applying that ruling to the widespread collection of data from individuals not suspected of any crime is incongruent.
Numerous individuals have speculated that the NSA program constitutes "bad acts." For example, here is the opinion of a Federal judge:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/
Leon's ruling said the "plaintiffs in this case have also shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim," adding "as such, they too have adequately demonstrated irreparable injury."
He rejected the government's argument that a 1979 Maryland case provided precedent for the constitutionality of collecting phone metadata, noting that public use of telephones had increased dramatically in the past three decades.
I suppose it comes down to who you want to believe - the NSA's own talking points, or the analysis from a wide spectrum of dissenters.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)How about providing a single example?
Nope. That was the background of the case.
The ruling stated:
1) Phone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record, and thus has no legal protection. As opposed to something like medical records that have legal protection.
2) Phone metadata belongs to the phone company, and not the individual. So the phone company gets to decide what to do with the metadata.
Because of 1) and 2), phone metadata can be gathered without a warrant, and without contacting the individual. And that applies whether you are collecting from one person or 350 million people. Scale is irrelevant to both components.
Which is why he is wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the 1979 ruling that restricts the scale of collection.
IMO a better ruling would have invalidated it based on the much larger amount of data collected as metadata. The 1979 data was just time of day, number called and duration. Cell phones provide much, much, much more data as metadata.
Alternatively, you could take more than a second to think about the post you are responding to, and realize the poster isn't backing the NSA's position. The poster is saying we have a much larger problem that requires a legislative fix. Just because Google or AT&T is doing the spying doesn't make it OK.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)with corporate data collection.
I just disagree with the notion that we shouldn't be upset with what the NSA is doing because of it.
As for your interpretation of the 1979 ruling, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I place a bit more weight on the interpretation of a Federal judge, though.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Just because they've got a black robe doesn't mean they are correct.
His argument is scale invalidates the 1979 ruling. Because.......scale. Big numbers.
Scale could be relevant if the 1979 ruling talked about "during an investigation", or "a suspect". Unfortunately, we got a very broad ruling about the data itself, and not only about investigation. Scale doesn't make the data suddenly private, or suddenly make the data belong to the individual.
You are free to drop the argument from authority and point out how scale could actually invalidate the 1979 ruling.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However, their opinions on the Constitutionality of the NSA's activities and the applicability of the 1979 ruling does carry more weight than the opinion of some guy named jeff47 (or Maedhros, for that matter) on the Internet. All "Arguments from Authority" are not fallacies:
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html
As for myself, I see the scope of the surveillance and the lack of a specific, named target to be problematic based upon the text of the 4th Amendment itself:
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)Yet you have apparently taken a lot of time to answer all these other posts, and delve into your debating opponent's history, so clearly you are not posting carelessly.
That really leaves only one conclusion. You are purposefully distorting facts to fit your agenda.
Just so I am clear as to what you position is (I think I can guess) - do you support what the NSA is doing vis-a-vi the collection of data on US Citizens without a warrant?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Verizon doesn't have to record your metadata. Or save it for for 3 years. Or sell it to anyone who pays them.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)You hang out in #History of Feminism. I normally don't waste time discussing anything with that gang. Enjoy your government.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)You never know! Better spied on than sorry!
mimi85
(1,805 posts)the most negative person on this forum - or any other I participate in. Try to relax, if possible. Take care and have a good week (if possible).
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Negative... FFS !!!
Obnoxious_One
(97 posts)And I've noticed much intimidation against those whole speak the truth.
NealK
(1,867 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)
... but those who PROMISED to work for US, did nothing about it, comfortable shoes or not. There are lies and then there gawddamn lies. The same crowd is looking for our support again.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I really tire of the apologists for the concerted attacks by our government on our constitutional rights.
Our government, the Congress in concert with the Executive have shredded the 4th Amendment with the Patriot Act, the endless spying and ever expanding secret government (NSA, FBI, CIA, etc.).
The Judiciary continues to give the government a pass on these practices as "necessary" for security. I suggest they study the history of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by the 5th Congress of the U.S.
The Judiciary continue to erode our democracy by recognizing money as speech, giving monied interests unrestrained ability to pervert our electoral process. The Judiciary continues to threaten the safety of Americans by recognizing an individual right to bear a firearm. Any clear reading of the 2nd Amendment casts this in the context of a "well-regulated militia".
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Especially when we are outvoted by the $$$$
jwirr
(39,215 posts)mean that if we were talking on the phone or the internet they zeroed in on us regardless if there was cause. We could be talking about a video game using words that could apply both to issues. That meant all of us were being spied on.
randome
(34,845 posts)Do you have any reason to suppose the NSA targets American citizens? All of what you just described is done for foreign targets, not citizens. At least so far as we know.
Just because someone has the capability of listening in on your conversations doesn't mean they are doing so. The FBI has that capability. Hell, I have that capability if I wanted to pursue it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
jwirr
(39,215 posts)I read that but they were talking about listening in on telephone conversations and internet conversations. There was nothing in the statement that limited this to foreigners. For one thing if you are listening for a WORD how do you know if It is a foreigner or a citizen that is talking?
randome
(34,845 posts)In fact, since the NSA is specifically forbidden from targeting citizens, there is information that refutes that idea.
But you're right in that if a foreign target is being monitored, there is no way to 'unhear' or to 'unsee' information that might be coming from an American citizen.
However, that's been the case ever since wiretaps were invented.
Neither Snowden nor Greenwald nor the Guardian have shown that the NSA is 'violating the Prime Directive', so to speak. They are forbidden by law from targeting citizens. If anyone has evidence this law is being violated, then I'd say we have plenty of reason to be outraged.
But where is that evidence?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm also glad that President Obama is happy to have a conversation about this: I presume this means he was going to tell us, anyway, so we could have this conversation."
...President Obama is doing more than having a "conversation."
By Andrea Peterson
During his Jan. 17 speech on National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, President Obama proposed a number of changes to the agency's bulk domestic phone records program. Thursday, the administration announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approved a motion to start implementing some of those changes.
Specifically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said the court granted a motion to modify the most recent primary order authorizing the 215 phone records program to ensure that the metadata will only be queried after a judicial finding that there is a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the selection is associated with an international terrorist organization "absent a true emergency." In addition, the motion limited the query results to metadata within two hops of the selection term, rather than the prior three.
The FISC also ordered a classification review of the motions and the most recent primary order authorizing the program from January of this year, the government's motion to amend that order, and the court's order granting that motion, to be completed by Feb. 17. Once the review is completed, ODNI says the documents will "will be published as appropriate."
<...>
Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office mirrored his sentiments. "It's good to see that some of the president's reforms to the bulk collection program have been implemented," she said. "What we need now, though, is not tinkering around the edges but an end to bulk collection. If the president won't end the program, then Congress must pass the USA FREEDOM Act and shut it down permanently."
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/07/obama-administration-starts-to-implement-changes-to-nsa-phone-records-program/
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency’s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that — if approved by Congress — would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials.
Under the proposal, they said, the N.S.A. would end its systematic collection of data about Americans’ calling habits. The bulk records would stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. And the N.S.A. could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.
In a speech in January, President Obama said he wanted to get the N.S.A. out of the business of collecting call records in bulk while preserving the program’s abilities. He acknowledged, however, that there was no easy way to do so, and had instructed Justice Department and intelligence officials to come up with a plan by March 28 — Friday — when the current court order authorizing the program expires.
<...>
Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union said, “We have many questions about the details, but we agree with the administration that the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of call records should end.” He added, “As we’ve argued since the program was disclosed, the government can track suspected terrorists without placing millions of people under permanent surveillance.”
"For The Record:" Yes, Bush actually spied on American:
<...>
The newly disclosed documents also refer to a decision by the court called Large Content FISA, a term that has not been publicly revealed before. Several current and former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Large Content FISA referred to sweeping but short-lived orders issued on Jan. 10, 2007, that authorized the Bush administration to continue its warrantless wiretapping program.
The Bush administration had sought a ruling to put the program, which had been exposed by The New York Times, on a firmer legal footing. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales disclosed a week after the decision that a judge had issued “innovative” and “complex” orders bringing the program under the surveillance court’s authority. But when they came up for renewal that April, another surveillance court judge balked and began requiring cumbersome paperwork, prompting the administration to seek a legislative solution, an intelligence official later explained.
<...>
Two classification guides say that the N.S.A. used the orders during a transition to the enactment of the Protect America Act, an August 2007 law in which Congress legalized the program. It was replaced with the FISA Amendments Act in 2008.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/how-a-courts-secret-evolution-extended-spies-reach.html
This is what I've been posting about for years. Bush was actually spying on Americans. He bypassed the courts, and Congress briefly made it legal.
http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print
Note, this is inside the U.S. and involves bypassing the FISA court to actually "eavesdrop."
Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.
From a post last year:
There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.
While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007
Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724
The major problem with the FISA amendments is that it gave the telecomms immunity. Otherwise, it included several reforms. What it did not do was make Bush's illegal spying legal.
Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
- Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
- Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
- Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]
- Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]
- Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]
- Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
- Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
- Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
- Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval. [22]
- Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
- Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
- Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
- Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year
- The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.[citation needed]
- Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours[21]
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)How much do you spend each year on candles for you Obama shrine?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...crimes against the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)It's about Snowden, dontcha know????!!!!!!111111ELEVENS
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Most people don't, which is why the outrage about this is limited to the Internet and pontificating politicians. You're wasting an awful amount of time on worrying about what could be happening to you.
Why not use that seemingly boundless energy on issues that we know need fixing?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Obama's NSA Speech Fails To Register With Americans, Poll Finds
There's nothing more basic than America's ability to fix our problems by smart voting, when things get awful enough that the average American uses their head. Police states inevitably end that ability.
randome
(34,845 posts)Of course everyone is going to say that. But is anyone other than the groups I mentioned up in arms about it? Not that I can see.
And how do you conflate 'police state' with metadata phone records that are obtained via a warrant? I honestly don't see that.
I really think this is low-hanging fruit for some to rail against because they feel powerless about the truly major issues we confront. Says more about the state of politics than any imaginary police state, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Maybe suspected, but didn't know. Hell, congress doesn't know. I'm sure the NSA feels much more effective as an intelligence gathering service if it basically just doesn't report to anyone on its methods and capabilities.
Why bother? Just invites oversight and investigation. It's not like they have to report their budget. Much of the intelligence budget, from the NSA, to the NRO, is all black. They probably tell their congressional oversight some dribs and drabs of what they are up to but keep in mind, these people on the committee include shitbirds like Michelle Bachmann. If you were actually in charge of something important, right or wrong, and you had to report to an idiot like her, I think you'd play your cards close to the chest too.
And this is all assuming the NSA actually plays it straight, and just goes too far in gathering info. Meaning, to say that they only gather, and do not exert influence to maintain their reach, by making say, phone calls to committee members telling them how they'll vote on something, or else XYZ dalliance goes public, etc.
That's a lot of power, right there, just in the fact they are an intelligence gathering agency, and they have a black budget. Power does funny things to people. Even good people.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You are defining the word "spying" so ludicrously loosely that you rob the term of all meaning.
That's also a fact.
sarah445
(1 post)thnaks to snowden he is my hero
MagnumUK
(37 posts)He is a hero to many!
Otelo
(62 posts)Sorted by recs. Pushback from pro-spying individuals has failed.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)
such thing..what evidence there is for that, I have not seen.
K&R
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I am sure you have seen the information.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)“Sometimes people don't want to hear (or see) the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Best we know and deal with it..a waste of time to presume they are the benevolent party.
They work for us, although this is lost on many Americans.
randome
(34,845 posts)Is that your fact?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Oh. Wait. Obama already said the NSA is not listening to your phone calls or reading your email.
As to inadvertently gathering information on citizens: happens all the time. You can't listen in to a foreign target's phone calls and somehow un-hear if he/she is speaking to an American.
Go ahead and pretend that I've been living in a cave for the past year. What fact do you have that the NSA is spying on American citizens? Should be easy to do since it's a 'fact' not subject to interpretation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Obama said...........really? What is it he is talking about reigning in?
I suggest if you wish to have a conversation about this you avoid telling me what I should
say to you.
You are looking for confirmation the NSA spied on all Americans from the POTUS, is that correct? If not, it has not taken place??
I can't imagine your reasoning to support such an enterprise, but it is your choice.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/guide-what-we-now-know-about-nsas-dragnet-searches-your-communications
Lawmakers Probe Willful Abuses of Power by NSA Analysts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-23/nsa-analysts-intentionally-abused-spying-powers-multiple-times.html
NSA performed warrantless searches on Americans' calls and emails – Clapper
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and you seem to think accessing metadata with a warrant that was collected on some Americans = NSA spying on all Americans. The OP is that dumb.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Why bother with an investigation and trial? He's guilty. I'm sure of it."
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)If by "spied on" you're referring to metadata collection, you're not simply naive... you're absolutely wrong:
For The Record: The NSA Did Not "Spy" on All Americans. It Is a Fact.
WASHINGTON--The National Security Agency phone-data program, which has been at the center of controversy over the NSA's surveillance operations, has been described by lawmakers as collecting records on virtually every phone call placed in the U.S.
In fact, it collects data for about 20% or less of that data, primarily because it doesn't cover records for most cellphones, the fastest growth in telephony and an area where the agency has struggled to keep pace, according to several people familiar with the program.
The dwindling coverage suggests the NSA's program is less pervasive than widely believed and also less useful.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)what a pile of BS.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Round it up to .002% of DU's membership.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)That's 66 and 61 years.
Have they ever done the right thing? Maybe. Has anyone overseen them? No. Has anyone bothered to get them under control? No.
If you would like to, how do you plan to do it? Do you have a plan? I sure don't.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Here's the WaPo report that shows Snowden/Greenwald lied in their sweeping claims http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/piercing-the-confusion-around-nsas-phone-surveillance-program/2013/08/08/bdece566-fbc4-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html
and here's a summary if that article is too long for you
Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims
