What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

Judge: "Officer Smith... the defense says you did not have a warrant when you collected the evidence being used to incriminate them. Can you response to this?"

Officer Smith; "Yes, your honor. It is true I did not have a search warrant when I collected the evidence. But I collected the evidence from their car with my eyes closed, so the 4th amendment did not limit my behavior of collecting it. It wasn't until I had the warrant that I opened my eyes to read what I gathered and saw it was evidence of their crime."
:lmao: I like the twist at the end, I was waiting for:

Officer Smith: "Yes, your honor. It is true I did not have a search warrant when I collected the evidence. But I did search every car in the tri-state area equally thoroughly w/o any specificity of which cars I searched before I data mined the contents and then got a search warrant for the cars that contained contraband."
Officer Smith: "Yes, your honor. It is true I did not have a search warrant when I collected the evidence. But we didn't do a targeted search. We spent the rest of the day searching every car we saw so that we weren't profiling anyone we searched."

 
In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.
So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.
I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.
:lol: Fair enough....I think this is probably the flimsiest line in the sand I have ever seen here at FBG....congratulations.
The reason you think the line in the sand is flimsy is because there isn't one. Either an idea makes sense or it doesn't. We can look at each proposal separately, without having to draw a line in the sand.
Of course there is a line...don't be silly. At some point it is acceptable, at another it's not. Where it converts from one to the other is that point (aka the line in the sand). To you, it appears that the collection is fine, it's what is interrogating the data and how where you draw the line. Computers looking through it is fine. People looking through it (in some cases) is not. I take it you're ok with a person looking through it after it goes through the computer program written by another person flags it to be looked through.

 
I need one more explanation then I'm done. What does "confidential" mean to you Tim?? Because if I have a program copying all your emails that you send, nothing is confidential anymore. By it being in someone else's hands other than you or your lawyer/doctor/priest whatever it's the very opposite of confidential by it's popular definition.
Under your broad-based definition, there is no such thing as a confidential email, because the server has access to it.

But legally speaking, it's confidential if (1) the government cannot use it in court against you without a proper warrant and (2) if you can successfully sue a private entity for gaining access to it without your permission.
"My definition" is what's used in the dictionary (for the purposes of this discussion). I'm trying to get YOUR definition as it appears to be completely contradicted by what the dictionary says. What's scary to me is that you're missing the sequence of events here. They are collecting it, mining the data, flagging data, investigating it to determine a warrant, get a warrant to use it against you in court. Does that sit well with you? Or are you suggesting that since I can sue the government, that approach is fine?

 
Did I miss something? When did it come out that they aren't storing all of the data? That's not what Snowden said and IIRC several intelligence officials have said they store it, but they store it in a secret separate place that the average analyst can't get to. And wasn't the collecting and storing of the data the tidbit that Clapper admits to have lied about to Congress?

And while we're on the topic of Congress... if there actually is oversight of this program by Congress, why did anyone have to testify before them as to the details of the program? Doesn't that mean they would already know all about it?

I feel like I opened up a completely different thread than the one I've been following.

 
Did I miss something? When did it come out that they aren't storing all of the data? That's not what Snowden said and IIRC several intelligence officials have said they store it, but they store it in a secret separate place that the average analyst can't get to. And wasn't the collecting and storing of the data the tidbit that Clapper admits to have lied about to Congress?

And while we're on the topic of Congress... if there actually is oversight of this program by Congress, why did anyone have to testify before them as to the details of the program? Doesn't that mean they would already know all about it?

I feel like I opened up a completely different thread than the one I've been following.
This thread is impossible to follow and its just a pissing match of hypotheticals. We still have no idea what they are doing.

They say that there are protections in place for Americans. Snowden doesn't disclaim that in theory, you have to go to a judge, but he says its just a rubber stamp and that there are ways around it. So why don't we hear how many were rejected? Or actually see the process in action? I fail to see how releasing the information that goes behind the decision hurts anyone but us?

As you mention, Congress on the whole had no idea and many seemed to approve of learning about it. So we still have no idea how much power PRISM has and what actual safeguards are in place apart from Obama and the IC saying that there are safeguards in place. And then they invoke the boogeyman and somehow say this leak hurts our national security? How? So now American will be smarter with their communications b/c they realize they are being spied on?

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
It's illogical to think it's destroyed. The logistics of turning it off and on while keeping enough to find patterns is virtually impossible.

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
You're right. I can't find it.

I first heard that during a CNN report which summarized Clapper's testimony. But I can't find it anywhere.

If the information is not being destroyed, it's far more problematic for me, to the point where I don't think I could support it. I still don't believe that it violates civil liberties, and I still don't buy into conspiracy theories. But if they keep the information forever that would make me uncomfortable enough to the point where it outweighs the security advantages. I will reserve final judgment until I know more. But they have no good reason to keep the information.

 
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
You're right. I can't find it.I first heard that during a CNN report which summarized Clapper's testimony. But I can't find it anywhere.

If the information is not being destroyed, it's far more problematic for me, to the point where I don't think I could support it. I still don't believe that it violates civil liberties, and I still don't buy into conspiracy theories. But if they keep the information forever that would make me uncomfortable enough to the point where it outweighs the security advantages. I will reserve final judgment until I know more. But they have no good reason to keep the information.
Of course they do!!! The next data mining request.

With FISA approving over 1700 data mining requests a year, they do a data mine on the data collection 4 to 5 times a day. And they will do 4 to 5 the next day, and 4 to 5 the next day, etc, etc....

The only good reason data would ever be purged from the data collection is old data is too old to have any value anymore (i.e. the statute of limitations on it being used as evidence has ran out). Why in the world would they delete data from the collection for any other reason?

 
The only good reason data would ever be purged from the data collection is old data is too old to have any value anymore (i.e. the statute of limitations on it being used as evidence has ran out). Why in the world would they delete data from the collection for any other reason?
You left out tight-wad management. Luckily when no that isn't a problem for the Fed gov't....

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
You're right. I can't find it.

I first heard that during a CNN report which summarized Clapper's testimony. But I can't find it anywhere.

If the information is not being destroyed, it's far more problematic for me, to the point where I don't think I could support it. I still don't believe that it violates civil liberties, and I still don't buy into conspiracy theories. But if they keep the information forever that would make me uncomfortable enough to the point where it outweighs the security advantages. I will reserve final judgment until I know more. But they have no good reason to keep the information.
As soon as you become uncomfortable with it, the security advantages no longer matter. I'm sure they have the tim's comfort level clause in these bills.

:lol:

 
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
Most of the debate over the last 37 pages, on my part, has been about whether or not this program is a violation of civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. I argued that it was not. I stand by that position. I WANTED to discuss whether or not the program itself was a good idea, but several of you refused to discuss that aspect. Whether or not the information is kept or destroyed relates to the latter discussion.

I still believe, ideally, that the program is a good idea, but it troubles me greatly that the information would not be destroyed afterwards. I stated several times that it was my understanding that it was, and that it was an important aspect for me as part of the overall assurance that the oversight is satisfactory.

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
You're right. I can't find it.I first heard that during a CNN report which summarized Clapper's testimony. But I can't find it anywhere.

If the information is not being destroyed, it's far more problematic for me, to the point where I don't think I could support it. I still don't believe that it violates civil liberties, and I still don't buy into conspiracy theories. But if they keep the information forever that would make me uncomfortable enough to the point where it outweighs the security advantages. I will reserve final judgment until I know more. But they have no good reason to keep the information.
As soon as you become uncomfortable with it, the security advantages no longer matter. I'm sure they have the tim's comfort level clause in these bills.

:lol:
So somewhere between keeping the information for 1 second, and keeping the information forever, they crossed the "timschoceht line"... well that narrows it down. :rollseyes:

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
You're right. I can't find it.

I first heard that during a CNN report which summarized Clapper's testimony. But I can't find it anywhere.

If the information is not being destroyed, it's far more problematic for me, to the point where I don't think I could support it. I still don't believe that it violates civil liberties, and I still don't buy into conspiracy theories. But if they keep the information forever that would make me uncomfortable enough to the point where it outweighs the security advantages. I will reserve final judgment until I know more. But they have no good reason to keep the information.
As soon as you become uncomfortable with it, the security advantages no longer matter. I'm sure they have the tim's comfort level clause in these bills.

:lol:
I don't usually consider anything other than my own sense of comfort. ;)

 
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
billions of miners stuck in a data-algorithm

 
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
Most of the debate over the last 37 pages, on my part, has been about whether or not this program is a violation of civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. I argued that it was not. I stand by that position. I WANTED to discuss whether or not the program itself was a good idea, but several of you refused to discuss that aspect. Whether or not the information is kept or destroyed relates to the latter discussion.I still believe, ideally, that the program is a good idea, but it troubles me greatly that the information would not be destroyed afterwards. I stated several times that it was my understanding that it was, and that it was an important aspect for me as part of the overall assurance that the oversight is satisfactory.
Destroyed after WHAT exactly.

 
Ease up on timschochet. He said he was under the impression that the data was not stored, let's move on. It seems pretty obvious to me that the data is being stored for future access. As an aside, I've read previously that our government stores encrypted data, presuming that they will someday have computers powerful enough to break the encryptions, although to be fair, I did not read that in connection with this program, but as part of its general spying programs.

Anyway, let's move forward... The metadata of your phone calls, content of your e-mails, etc. are all being parsed AND stored. Is it a violation of the 4th?

 
Ease up on timschochet. He said he was under the impression that the data was not stored, let's move on. It seems pretty obvious to me that the data is being stored for future access. As an aside, I've read previously that our government stores encrypted data, presuming that they will someday have computers powerful enough to break the encryptions, although to be fair, I did not read that in connection with this program, but as part of its general spying programs.

Anyway, let's move forward... The metadata of your phone calls, content of your e-mails, etc. are all being parsed AND stored. Is it a violation of the 4th?
It's a clear violation of the 4th and it could be argued that it infringes upon the 1st.

 
The only good reason data would ever be purged from the data collection is old data is too old to have any value anymore (i.e. the statute of limitations on it being used as evidence has ran out). Why in the world would they delete data from the collection for any other reason?
I don't think statute of limitations would be the yardstick for record retention. My guess is that anything that can be used to identify patterns and narrow down suspects would be kept, even if it couldn't actually be used as evidence in a criminal trial. Just the fact that it would be useful in finding people up to no good (terrorists, spies, political enemies, potential troublemakers, hippies, Christians, and the like) would be enough for law enforcement to want to maintain the database as long as there's an ROI of any kind.

 
If they were destroying all the data they wouldn't keep needing to build more and bigger datacenters. As usual, Tim is making stuff up. I bet he can't provide one credible source that says they destrroy it immediately after mining it.
You're right. I can't find it.I first heard that during a CNN report which summarized Clapper's testimony. But I can't find it anywhere.

If the information is not being destroyed, it's far more problematic for me, to the point where I don't think I could support it. I still don't believe that it violates civil liberties, and I still don't buy into conspiracy theories. But if they keep the information forever that would make me uncomfortable enough to the point where it outweighs the security advantages. I will reserve final judgment until I know more. But they have no good reason to keep the information.
No one destroys data Tim. Ask any IT guy

 
The only good reason data would ever be purged from the data collection is old data is too old to have any value anymore (i.e. the statute of limitations on it being used as evidence has ran out). Why in the world would they delete data from the collection for any other reason?
I don't think statute of limitations would be the yardstick for record retention. My guess is that anything that can be used to identify patterns and narrow down suspects would be kept, even if it couldn't actually be used as evidence in a criminal trial. Just the fact that it would be useful in finding people up to no good (terrorists, spies, political enemies, potential troublemakers, hippies, Christians, and the like) would be enough for law enforcement to want to maintain the database as long as there's an ROI of any kind.
Yep, I was trying to come up with a reason one would delete it. That was the best I could come up with.

If there is supposedly "nothing" in the constitution stopping them from collecting it, then there's "nothing" compelling them to delete it either.

 
Citizens and the State: The Problem Is Bigger Than You Think The NSA scandal is the tip of the iceberg.A. Barton Hinkle | June 17, 2013

“This abuse of state power,” writes Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei about the U.S. government’s surveillance of U.S. citizens, “goes totally against my understanding of what it means to be a civilized society.”

Weiwei has a better understanding of important things than Americans who find nothing wrong with the NSA’s domestic spying. According to last week’s polls, those Americans are in the majority. If you have done nothing wrong, many say, then you have nothing to hide. Really? We are supposed to believe the federal government does no wrong. If so, then by this logic we should declassify everything.

(There is some cold comfort in the poll, which shows that Democrats and Republicans support surveillance less when the other party holds the Oval Office. So some support for the NSA’s activities may have more to to with team-sports loyalty than deep-rooted conviction.)

The revelations about the extent of domestic surveillance have been a big story since they broke earlier this month. And the story keeps getting bigger: MSN reports that the IRS is “acquiring a huge volume of personal information on taxpayers' digital activities, from eBay auctions to Facebook posts and, for the first time ever, credit card and e-payment transaction records.” Soon it will have your health-insurance information, too.

Yet the tight focus on electronic surveillance keeps the bigger story out of the frame.

The bigger story concerns the increasingly asymmetric relationship between citizens and the state. The formerly secret program of domestic spying neatly illuminates one aspect of that asymmetry: The government knows, or can know, an awful lot about you. But you are not supposed to know even that it knows, let alone what it knows.

More of what the government does is classified than ever before. If you do not know what the government is doing then, obviously, you have no say over its activities. This flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” How can you consent to something you know nothing of?

The principle animating democratic and republican government is accountability to the governed. Yet more and more government action lies beyond the citizens’ reach. As law professor Jonthan Turley explained in a Washington Post piece that appeared before the surveillance leaks, “our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch of government, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.” (Viz., the NSA.)

The “vast majority of laws,” he continues, “are not passed by Congress but issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats.” In 2007, he writes, “Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies” – there are now 69 of them – “finalized 2,926 rules.”

The administrative state is taking over not only the legislative function, but also the judicial: Turley reports that “a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court.” And such agency creep, as it might be called, does not stop at the federal-state boundary.

Last month the Minnesota Supreme Court deferred answering a basic question of constitutional rights: Can the government enter your home without probable cause? A city ordinance in Red Wing, Minn., allows building inspectors with administrative warrants to enter rental units even when both the landlord and the tenant object. And as the Arlington-based Institute for Justice points out, they “do not require the government to have any evidence that there is anything actually wrong with a residence.”

If you were asked to name a country that routinely stockpiles its citizens’ private communications, keeps it in the dark about that activity and many others, tries citizens in extra-judicial proceedings for violations of edicts not passed by any legislature, and permits government agents to enter private domiciles at whim, you might say: China. Or Cuba. Or Saudi Arabia.

America is none of those places, of course. Not even close. But it is not a happy thing to note that the fourth branch of government – the administrative state against which Republican politicians rail – is largely impervious to elections. And that despite the uproar over domestic surveillance, an activity the election of Barack Obama was supposed to curtail, the general consensus seems to hold that such monitoring will continue unabated. Politicians come and go; autonomous agencies and mass surveillance are here to stay. Elections still matter a great deal in the U.S., but they matter now less than they once did – and less than they should.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/17/citizens-and-the-state-the-problem-is-bi

 
3 Former NSA Employees Praise Edward Snowden, Corroborate Key ClaimsThe men, all whistleblowers, say he succeeded where they failed.
Conor FriedersdorfJun 18 2013, 8:30 AM ETUSA Today has published an extraordinary interview with three former NSA employees who praise Edward Snowden's leaks, corroborate some of his claims, and warn about unlawful government acts.

Thomas Drake, William Binney, and J. Kirk Wiebe each protested the NSA in their own rights. "For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens," the newspaper reports. "They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media."

[SIZE=1em]In other words, they blew the whistle in the way Snowden's critics suggest he should have done. [/SIZE][SIZE=1em]Their method didn't get through to the members of Congress who are saying, in the wake of the Snowden leak, that they had no idea what was going on. But they are nonetheless owed thanks.[/SIZE]

And among them, they've now said all of the following:

  • His disclosures did not cause grave damage to national security.
  • What Snowden discovered is "material evidence of an institutional crime."
  • As a system administrator, Snowden "could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure -- because he would be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That's why he said, I think, 'I can even target the president or a judge.' If he knew their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be collected, yeah, that's right. As a super-user, he could do that."
  • "The idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth."
  • Congressional overseers "have no real way of seeing into what these agencies are doing. They are totally dependent on the agencies briefing them on programs, telling them what they are doing."
  • Lawmakers "don't really don't understand what the NSA does and how it operates. Even when they get briefings, they still don't understand."
  • Asked what Edward Snowden should expect to happen to him, one of the men, William Binney, answered, "first tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed." Interesting that this is what a whistleblower thinks the U.S. government will do to a citizen. The abuse of Bradley Manning worked.
  • "There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered."
The fact that former NSA employees have said these things doesn't automatically make them true. All have reason to identify with Snowden (though one thinks he may have crossed a line by talking about surveillance on China). What this interview does mean is that some of Snowden's allegations seem even more credible than they did when he was the only one making them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/3-former-nsa-employees-praise-edward-snowden-corroborate-key-claims/276964/

 
What happened to the good ol' days when everyone just assumed the government was spying/intercepting/reading all electronic communications?

 
Politician Spock said:
timschochet said:
Nikki2200 said:
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
Most of the debate over the last 37 pages, on my part, has been about whether or not this program is a violation of civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. I argued that it was not. I stand by that position. I WANTED to discuss whether or not the program itself was a good idea, but several of you refused to discuss that aspect. Whether or not the information is kept or destroyed relates to the latter discussion.I still believe, ideally, that the program is a good idea, but it troubles me greatly that the information would not be destroyed afterwards. I stated several times that it was my understanding that it was, and that it was an important aspect for me as part of the overall assurance that the oversight is satisfactory.
Destroyed after WHAT exactly.
:popcorn: This whole set of assumptions is particularly entertaining to me. If the birthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists are out in left field of the reality ballpark, this puts him in the parking lot, but at least now I'm seeing how he is coming to his conclusions. Tim, I'd recommend stepping back and evaluating your assumptions. They are leading you astray.

 
Politician Spock said:
timschochet said:
Nikki2200 said:
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
Most of the debate over the last 37 pages, on my part, has been about whether or not this program is a violation of civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. I argued that it was not. I stand by that position. I WANTED to discuss whether or not the program itself was a good idea, but several of you refused to discuss that aspect. Whether or not the information is kept or destroyed relates to the latter discussion.I still believe, ideally, that the program is a good idea, but it troubles me greatly that the information would not be destroyed afterwards. I stated several times that it was my understanding that it was, and that it was an important aspect for me as part of the overall assurance that the oversight is satisfactory.
Destroyed after WHAT exactly.
:popcorn: This whole set of assumptions is particularly entertaining to me. If the birthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists are out in left field of the reality ballpark, this puts him in the parking lot, but at least now I'm seeing how he is coming to his conclusions. Tim, I'd recommend stepping back and evaluating your assumptions. They are leading you astray.
Probably so. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, at least for the time being, until I learn a little more about this.

 
Politician Spock said:
timschochet said:
Nikki2200 said:
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
Most of the debate over the last 37 pages, on my part, has been about whether or not this program is a violation of civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. I argued that it was not. I stand by that position. I WANTED to discuss whether or not the program itself was a good idea, but several of you refused to discuss that aspect. Whether or not the information is kept or destroyed relates to the latter discussion.I still believe, ideally, that the program is a good idea, but it troubles me greatly that the information would not be destroyed afterwards. I stated several times that it was my understanding that it was, and that it was an important aspect for me as part of the overall assurance that the oversight is satisfactory.
Destroyed after WHAT exactly.
:popcorn: This whole set of assumptions is particularly entertaining to me. If the birthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists are out in left field of the reality ballpark, this puts him in the parking lot, but at least now I'm seeing how he is coming to his conclusions. Tim, I'd recommend stepping back and evaluating your assumptions. They are leading you astray.
Probably so. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, at least for the time being, until I learn a little more about this.
:lmao: See ya in a few.

 
Politician Spock said:
timschochet said:
Nikki2200 said:
:confused:

So tim.... this whole time... you were of the impression that they didn't actually STORE every single phone call we make (and probably e-mails although I do not believe that has been confirmed)???? That's what the past 37 pages has been about???? And if you found out they do actually keep all of this data in giant databases like we've all been talking about the whole time, this would change your opinion?

:wall:
Most of the debate over the last 37 pages, on my part, has been about whether or not this program is a violation of civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. I argued that it was not. I stand by that position. I WANTED to discuss whether or not the program itself was a good idea, but several of you refused to discuss that aspect. Whether or not the information is kept or destroyed relates to the latter discussion.I still believe, ideally, that the program is a good idea, but it troubles me greatly that the information would not be destroyed afterwards. I stated several times that it was my understanding that it was, and that it was an important aspect for me as part of the overall assurance that the oversight is satisfactory.
Destroyed after WHAT exactly.
:popcorn: This whole set of assumptions is particularly entertaining to me. If the birthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists are out in left field of the reality ballpark, this puts him in the parking lot, but at least now I'm seeing how he is coming to his conclusions. Tim, I'd recommend stepping back and evaluating your assumptions. They are leading you astray.
Probably so. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, at least for the time being, until I learn a little more about this.
C'mon, that never stopped you before; I think you just need to spend some time with your HenryGhot alias.
 
NSA Claim of Thwarted NYSE Plot Contradicted by Court Documents

Court documents and FBI field reports reviewed by ABC News undercut and contradict the dramatic testimony from senior counter-terrorism officials that the National Security Agency's surveillance programs thwarted an attack by al Qaeda on the New York Stock Exchange.

According to an FBI interview with an imprisoned al Qaeda figure involved in the plot, "there was no further operational planning of that target" after surveillance found the four streets around the exchange building "were blocked off from vehicular traffic."

The FBI document was filed last month in federal court in New York as part of the government sentencing memorandum for one of the alleged plotters, Sabirhan Hasanoff, who is to be sentenced next week.

But the FBI deputy director, Sean Joyce, provided Congress with a different version of events Tuesday as he cited the stock exchange plot as one of more than 50 "terror events" that had been disrupted with the help of the NSA's secret surveillance programs.

"We went up on the electronic surveillance and identified his co-conspirators and this was the plot that was in the very initial stages of plotting to bomb the New York Stock Exchange," Joyce testified.

Asked whether it was a "serious plot" by one member of Congress, Joyce said, "I think the jury considered it serious since they were all convicted."

In fact, ABC News found there was no jury trial of any of the three alleged plotters. None of them were charged with planning an attack on Wall Street. Rather, all three pleaded guilty to charges including providing financial and material support to al Qaeda.

A U.S. official familiar with the case acknowledged that Joyce had "misspoke" about a jury finding.

The official insisted that a terror plot may not seem like a serious threat if it's stopped in the planning stages, as the Stock Exchange targeting was.

"It was, as Deputy Director Joyce stated, in its nascent stages and could have progressed well beyond that if it wasn't for our ability to obtain the FISA material," the official told ABC News.

Describing the charges against one of the plotters, Khalid Ouazzani of Kansas City, the then-United States attorney Beth Phillips, now a federal judge, said, "We have no evidence that Ouazzani engaged in any specific plot against the United States government."

A spokesman, Don Ledford, today added, "We would still stand by that, that he posed no imminent threat to the public."

One current and one former counter-terrorism official told ABC News there may be more to the Hasanoff case than the public record contains, including sensitive intelligence prosecutors chose not to enter into evidence.

Officials said whatever the role of the NSA programs, there is no doubt that Hasanoff and the others were potential threats to the U.S. through their repeated contacts with al Qaeda figures in Yemen.

Authorities said the NSA surveillance programs did first identify Ouazzani as being in contact with al Qaeda leaders in Yemen, and that information helped lead to two other Americans, Hasanoff and Wesam El-Hanafi, who all swore an oath of allegiance to al Qaeda, according to the court documents.

FBI agents were then able to investigate Ouazzani, track his travels to the Middle East and later he became a cooperating witness for the government.

According to the government documents, the New York Stock Exchange plot began in 2008 with a request to Hasanoff to "perform surveillance" for "purposes of planning an attack in the United States."

On August 7, Hasanoff wrote in an email to his al Qaeda coordinator in Yemen, intercepted by the government, "I have visited the tourist locations you asked me about and will report to you after two weeks in detail."

The FBI report says the al Qaeda leader "was not satisfied with the report, and he accordingly disposed of it. (The report apparently lacked sufficient detail about New York Stock Exchange security matters to be as helpful as the Doctor had hoped.)"

The attorney for Hasanoff, David Rhunke, said the idea that the FBI and the NSA would use the alleged plot to justify the surveillance programs is "almost silly."

In his plea to the court ahead of sentencing, Hasanoff said "he deliberately provided nothing beyond what anyone could have learned from Google Earth, a tourist map or brochure." He said there was "no further discussion of surveillance of the NYSE or any other tourist sites after August 2008."

Yet, FBI deputy director Joyce repeatedly cited the case in defending the controversial electronic surveillance. "I sit before you today, humbly, to say these tools have helped us," he said.

Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA, testified, "The information gathered from these programs provided the US government with critical leads to help prevent over fifty potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world."

 
After the guy was sentenced, the official NSA "cleaner" sat down at his terminal, highlighted everything with Hasanoff's name next to it, and hit the giant red "delete" button.

Unfortunately, he happened to glance at another part of the screen before returning to his game of Minesweeper 2010 and David Hasselhoff is now under investigation.

 
In his plea to the court ahead of sentencing, Hasanoff said "he deliberately provided nothing beyond what anyone could have learned from Google Earth, a tourist map or brochure." He said there was "no further discussion of surveillance of the NYSE or any other tourist sites after August 2008."
This...in a nutshell is what bothers me about these "programs". We will never know what is going on with them.

 
“What concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key,” he said. “What you want is as many dots as you can. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field,” he said. “Now, you know, it may make that decision that it’s not worth it. But let there be no mistake about it. There will be fewer dots out there to connect” in trying to prevent the next terrorist attack.
FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top