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

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

 

[NCCommish]

2. It’s judicially supervised. The leaked document is a court order. It was issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [FISA] Court. To get the Verizon data, the FBI had to ask the court for permission. The Bush administration used to extract this kind of metadata unilaterally. The Obama administration has changed the rules to bring in the court as an overseer.

3. It’s congressionally supervised. Any senator who’s expressing shock about the program is a liar or a fool. The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been briefed on it many times. Committee members have had access to the relevant FISA court orders and opinions. The intelligence committee has also informed all senators in writing about the program, twice, with invitations to review classified documents about it prior to reauthorization. If they didn’t know about it, they weren’t paying attention.

Both of these arguments suck. Technically yes, it is judicially supervised, but it's supervised by a secret court that doesn't publish its opinions or provide any record of the government's interpretation of the law. And yes technically some members of Congress are briefed on this program, but they are legally barred from telling their constituents about it.

Per point #2, the writer notes a distinction between the Bush and Obama administrations. Is that relevant?

No it isn't. In fact enshrining it in this secret framework makes it more pernicious. Now it is institutionalized.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

2. It’s judicially supervised. The leaked document is a court order. It was issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [FISA] Court. To get the Verizon data, the FBI had to ask the court for permission. The Bush administration used to extract this kind of metadata unilaterally. The Obama administration has changed the rules to bring in the court as an overseer.

3. It’s congressionally supervised. Any senator who’s expressing shock about the program is a liar or a fool. The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been briefed on it many times. Committee members have had access to the relevant FISA court orders and opinions. The intelligence committee has also informed all senators in writing about the program, twice, with invitations to review classified documents about it prior to reauthorization. If they didn’t know about it, they weren’t paying attention.

Both of these arguments suck. Technically yes, it is judicially supervised, but it's supervised by a secret court that doesn't publish its opinions or provide any record of the government's interpretation of the law. And yes technically some members of Congress are briefed on this program, but they are legally barred from telling their constituents about it.

Per point #2, the writer notes a distinction between the Bush and Obama administrations. Is that relevant?

Not particularly no, and there's no reason to make this a partisan issue.

 

[NCCommish]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

We know this because when you look at the opinions issued by FISA courts, you can see that . . . oh yeah that's right none of us get to see what these courts are doing or why. But no need to worry.

 

[timschochet]

2. It’s judicially supervised. The leaked document is a court order. It was issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [FISA] Court. To get the Verizon data, the FBI had to ask the court for permission. The Bush administration used to extract this kind of metadata unilaterally. The Obama administration has changed the rules to bring in the court as an overseer.

3. It’s congressionally supervised. Any senator who’s expressing shock about the program is a liar or a fool. The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been briefed on it many times. Committee members have had access to the relevant FISA court orders and opinions. The intelligence committee has also informed all senators in writing about the program, twice, with invitations to review classified documents about it prior to reauthorization. If they didn’t know about it, they weren’t paying attention.

Both of these arguments suck. Technically yes, it is judicially supervised, but it's supervised by a secret court that doesn't publish its opinions or provide any record of the government's interpretation of the law. And yes technically some members of Congress are briefed on this program, but they are legally barred from telling their constituents about it.

Per point #2, the writer notes a distinction between the Bush and Obama administrations. Is that relevant?

Not particularly no, and there's no reason to make this a partisan issue.

I wasn't trying to do so. But I seem to recall that when this very same issue was debated during the last years of the Bush administration, I made the point that while I was not necessarily opposed to these measures, I would like to see a judicial review, even if it was after the fact. Some conservatives at the time argued with me that it wasn't necessary. Now it looks as if Obama has resolved that question, but apparently nobody thinks it's important any longer.

 

[Slapdash]

It was a joke since the US routinely prosecutes whistleblowers of this type.

Sorry. I take this very seriously and I missed the joke.

Sure, it is a serious issue and I have been part of the crowd for a while. But what can you do about it? The government has been engaging in this type of behavior for decades (or longer). The only new revelation is that the technology they can use to do it is much more powerful.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

We know this because when you look at the opinions issued by FISA courts, you can see that . . . oh yeah that's right none of us get to see what these courts are doing or why. But no need to worry.

There's a difference between worrying that the court is a rubber stamp and simply assuming that they are.

 

[Slapdash]

2. It’s judicially supervised. The leaked document is a court order. It was issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [FISA] Court. To get the Verizon data, the FBI had to ask the court for permission. The Bush administration used to extract this kind of metadata unilaterally. The Obama administration has changed the rules to bring in the court as an overseer.

3. It’s congressionally supervised. Any senator who’s expressing shock about the program is a liar or a fool. The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been briefed on it many times. Committee members have had access to the relevant FISA court orders and opinions. The intelligence committee has also informed all senators in writing about the program, twice, with invitations to review classified documents about it prior to reauthorization. If they didn’t know about it, they weren’t paying attention.

Both of these arguments suck. Technically yes, it is judicially supervised, but it's supervised by a secret court that doesn't publish its opinions or provide any record of the government's interpretation of the law. And yes technically some members of Congress are briefed on this program, but they are legally barred from telling their constituents about it.

Per point #2, the writer notes a distinction between the Bush and Obama administrations. Is that relevant?

Not particularly no, and there's no reason to make this a partisan issue.

I wasn't trying to do so. But I seem to recall that when this very same issue was debated during the last years of the Bush administration, I made the point that while I was not necessarily opposed to these measures, I would like to see a judicial review, even if it was after the fact. Some conservatives at the time argued with me that it wasn't necessary. Now it looks as if Obama has resolved that question, but apparently nobody thinks it's important any longer.

They're not being judicially reviewed.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

We know this because when you look at the opinions issued by FISA courts, you can see that . . . oh yeah that's right none of us get to see what these courts are doing or why. But no need to worry.

There's a difference between worrying that the court is a rubber stamp and simply assuming that they are.

My point is that there's no way for us to know whether these programs receive anything other than cursory scrutiny. The fact that this is process is completely opaque ought to be troubling all by itself.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

 

[Fennis]

constitution, shmonstitution

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Obama

 

[Slapdash]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

 

[Black Box]

They're not being judicially reviewed.

This "justification" just makes it creepier to me. Usually, when we say "judicially reviewed" we mean reviewed by judges in court on public record. This isn't that as everything that goes on ends up classified. So it is trying to trade on our usual meaning for "judicially reviewed" to make it seem like this is the same thing when it isn't.

 

[Slapdash]

Obama

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

We know this because when you look at the opinions issued by FISA courts, you can see that . . . oh yeah that's right none of us get to see what these courts are doing or why. But no need to worry.

There's a difference between worrying that the court is a rubber stamp and simply assuming that they are.

My point is that there's no way for us to know whether these programs receive anything other than cursory scrutiny. The fact that this is process is completely opaque ought to be troubling all by itself.

That's true. But again, we're making assumptions when the truth is we just don't know.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

 

[Fennis]

Rare pic of FISA "judge"

 

[Black Box]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

timeline

 

[timschochet]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Thanks.

But again, I don't know form this report how many of these, if any, were for specific wiretaps. I will assume that given the number (in the 1700s) some were, though I have nothing to base that assumption on. The other point is that I have to assume that the government would not be in the habit of asking for specific surveillance that they expected to be refused.

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

 

[Fennis]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

Since Oct 26, 2001.

 

[Slapdash]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

It is all a serious abuse of the rights of Americans whether they collecting metadata (another word the executive branch has manipulated) or actual call logs.

It is ridiculous to keep assuming the best of this government.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

These are mass groups of calls under surveillance. My understanding has always been that, rather than listening to each call (which wouldn't be possible even if they wanted to) they are running them through computer programs looking for words are phrases that are associated with very specific terrorist activities. If they find those words or phrases, then they investigate that call. And perhaps at that point a specific wiretap is warranted.

Theoretically at least, I don't have a problem with this.

 

[[icon]]

Its refreshing to see Tim has an expert opinion™ on telecommunications law and it's application to federal search and seizure.

 

[Slapdash]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

These are mass groups of calls under surveillance. My understanding has always been that, rather than listening to each call (which wouldn't be possible even if they wanted to) they are running them through computer programs looking for words are phrases that are associated with very specific terrorist activities. If they find those words or phrases, then they investigate that call. And perhaps at that point a specific wiretap is warranted.

Theoretically at least, I don't have a problem with this.

Libertarians always stick up for Big Brother.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

It is all a serious abuse of the rights of Americans whether they collecting metadata (another word the executive branch has manipulated) or actual call logs.

It is ridiculous to keep assuming the best of this government.

To me, it is equally ridiculous to keep assuming the worst. Our government is neither particularly good nor evil. But be that as it may, I disagree with you. I don't regard collecting metadata as "a serious abuse of the rights of Americans."

 

[Apple Jack]

This story is not about the content of the calls, but with origin, receiver, tower locations (?), when, and duration. Am I missing a component?

 

[timschochet]

Its refreshing to see Tim has an expert opinion™ on telecommunications law and it's application to federal search and seizure.

I don't have an expert opinion. My point is that I'm skeptical that anyone else in this thread has one either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

It's the fact that you don't have enough information and the fact that the government is specifically blocking you from getting enough information that ought to make you suspicious.

 

[Slapdash]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

It is all a serious abuse of the rights of Americans whether they collecting metadata (another word the executive branch has manipulated) or actual call logs.

It is ridiculous to keep assuming the best of this government.

To me, it is equally ridiculous to keep assuming the worst. Our government is neither particularly good nor evil. But be that as it may, I disagree with you. I don't regard collecting metadata as "a serious abuse of the rights of Americans."

Those that have spent the last several years assuming the worst have been proven right in the last few days.

 

[Black Box]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Thanks.

But again, I don't know form this report how many of these, if any, were for specific wiretaps. I will assume that given the number (in the 1700s) some were, though I have nothing to base that assumption on. The other point is that I have to assume that the government would not be in the habit of asking for specific surveillance that they expected to be refused.

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

Even if I assumed that everything was being done above board currently, I'd still have major problems with the way the entire program is set up. It is not that difficult to imagine a scenario how it could be abused with its current state and structure. That is enough for me.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

These are mass groups of calls under surveillance. My understanding has always been that, rather than listening to each call (which wouldn't be possible even if they wanted to) they are running them through computer programs looking for words are phrases that are associated with very specific terrorist activities. If they find those words or phrases, then they investigate that call. And perhaps at that point a specific wiretap is warranted.

Theoretically at least, I don't have a problem with this.

Libertarians always stick up for Big Brother.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, modern day extremists have so misapplied the term "libertarianism", and moved it so far away from what it was back in the 80s when I was involved, that I no longer consider myself one.

 

[timschochet]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Thanks.

But again, I don't know form this report how many of these, if any, were for specific wiretaps. I will assume that given the number (in the 1700s) some were, though I have nothing to base that assumption on. The other point is that I have to assume that the government would not be in the habit of asking for specific surveillance that they expected to be refused.

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

Even if I assumed that everything was being done above board currently, I'd still have major problems with the way the entire program is set up. It is not that difficult to imagine a scenario how it could be abused with its current state and structure. That is enough for me.

I think you make a reasonable point.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

It is all a serious abuse of the rights of Americans whether they collecting metadata (another word the executive branch has manipulated) or actual call logs.

It is ridiculous to keep assuming the best of this government.

To me, it is equally ridiculous to keep assuming the worst. Our government is neither particularly good nor evil. But be that as it may, I disagree with you. I don't regard collecting metadata as "a serious abuse of the rights of Americans."

Those that have spent the last several years assuming the worst have been proven right in the last few days.

I expect the worst from our government and they never let me down.

 

[timschochet]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

It is all a serious abuse of the rights of Americans whether they collecting metadata (another word the executive branch has manipulated) or actual call logs.

It is ridiculous to keep assuming the best of this government.

To me, it is equally ridiculous to keep assuming the worst. Our government is neither particularly good nor evil. But be that as it may, I disagree with you. I don't regard collecting metadata as "a serious abuse of the rights of Americans."

Those that have spent the last several years assuming the worst have been proven right in the last few days.

In what sense? What is different in the last few days? We've known about this for years.

 

[Slapdash]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

These are mass groups of calls under surveillance. My understanding has always been that, rather than listening to each call (which wouldn't be possible even if they wanted to) they are running them through computer programs looking for words are phrases that are associated with very specific terrorist activities. If they find those words or phrases, then they investigate that call. And perhaps at that point a specific wiretap is warranted.

Theoretically at least, I don't have a problem with this.

Libertarians always stick up for Big Brother.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, modern day extremists have so misapplied the term "libertarianism", and moved it so far away from what it was back in the 80s when I was involved, that I no longer consider myself one.

Balderdash

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

When did wiretapping become the issue? Is there another definition of wiretapping that does not involve listening to the conversation that is being used here?

These are mass groups of calls under surveillance. My understanding has always been that, rather than listening to each call (which wouldn't be possible even if they wanted to) they are running them through computer programs looking for words are phrases that are associated with very specific terrorist activities. If they find those words or phrases, then they investigate that call. And perhaps at that point a specific wiretap is warranted.

Theoretically at least, I don't have a problem with this.

Libertarians always stick up for Big Brother.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, modern day extremists have so misapplied the term "libertarianism", and moved it so far away from what it was back in the 80s when I was involved, that I no longer consider myself one.

Oh you mean when Ron Paul was a libertarian?

 

[Slapdash]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

This is the whole ####### problem.

Personally, I don't think, based on what we know, that I have a problem with the program- IF specific wiretaps are being properly supervised by an independent judiciary. I don't know at this moment if that's taking place or not.

It is all a serious abuse of the rights of Americans whether they collecting metadata (another word the executive branch has manipulated) or actual call logs.

It is ridiculous to keep assuming the best of this government.

To me, it is equally ridiculous to keep assuming the worst. Our government is neither particularly good nor evil. But be that as it may, I disagree with you. I don't regard collecting metadata as "a serious abuse of the rights of Americans."

Those that have spent the last several years assuming the worst have been proven right in the last few days.

In what sense? What is different in the last few days? We've known about this for years.

We've known about PRISM for years? Certainly we've speculated about it, but it hadn't been confirmed.

Same thing with these wiretaps.

 

[timschochet]

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

It's the fact that you don't have enough information and the fact that the government is specifically blocking you from getting enough information that ought to make you suspicious.

The general who recommended the internment of Japanese-Americans to President Roosevelt in 1942 told FDR: "The fact that there is no evidence of Japanese sabotage on the West Coast is in itself suspicious". That's what you sound like.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Oh you mean when Ron Paul was a libertarian?

And Tea Party members were Republicans.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

It's the fact that you don't have enough information and the fact that the government is specifically blocking you from getting enough information that ought to make you suspicious.

The general who recommended the internment of Japanese-Americans to President Roosevelt in 1942 told FDR: "The fact that there is no evidence of Japanese sabotage on the West Coast is in itself suspicious". That's what you sound like.

I have a philosophical problem with secret courts overseeing secret surveillance programs, and you have me rounding up Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Great.

 

[Slapdash]

NSA Building $860 Million Data Center in Maryland

As its current data collection makes headlines, the National Security Agency is continuing to expand its data storage and processing capabilities. The agency recently broke ground on an $860 million data center at Fort Meade, Maryland that will span more than 600,000 square feet, including 70,000 square feet of technical space.

Last month the NSA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began building the High Performance Computing Center-2, an NSA-run facility that will be located on base at Fort Meade, which is home to much of the agency’s existing data center operations. The data center will be supported by 60 megawatts of power capacity, and will use both air-cooled and liquid-cooled equipment.

The NSA is already building a massive data center in Utah [1], investing up to $1.5 billion in a project that will feature up to 1 million square feet of facilities.

The construction at Fort Meade will see investment of $400 million in fiscal 2013 and $431 million in fiscal 2014. Up to 6,000 workers will be involved in the construction and development phase, the NSA said. [2]

Scheduled for completion in 2016, the center’s mission will be to protect national security networks and providing U.S. authorities with intelligence and warnings about cyber threats. The project is part of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which the White House launched in 2008 to provide a unified approach to securing America’s digital infrastructure.

“With this new state-of-the-art computing center, Maryland and the NSA will continue to protect America from cyber terrorists, spies, and thugs,” said Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee and senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “Maryland is the global epicenter of cybersecurity, leading the way in finding cyber-tech solutions that make our country safer, and creating cyber-warrior jobs that make our economy stronger.”

 

[NCCommish]

Tim your government lies to you. They lie to their allies. They break international treaties. I know this because I have been involved. I have been places we weren't supposed to be, doing things we weren't supposed to do, and you were either told nothing about it or were lied to about it, usually a bit of both. I have helped break international treaties concerning certain weapon systems. I have seen men killed in a place we weren't supposed to be and their deaths tucked into a training exercise thousands of miles away.

Your naivety is kind of nice but it's time to take off the blinders. Governments exist to accrue power and the only curb on that accrual is sunshine. Too much happening in the dark here for anyone to be comfortable with or accepting of it.

 

[Slapdash]

Perhaps you guys all think that I'm operating on too high a standard, but at this point I just don't have enough information to be as suspicious about this as some of you are.

It's the fact that you don't have enough information and the fact that the government is specifically blocking you from getting enough information that ought to make you suspicious.

The general who recommended the internment of Japanese-Americans to President Roosevelt in 1942 told FDR: "The fact that there is no evidence of Japanese sabotage on the West Coast is in itself suspicious". That's what you sound like.

 

[timschochet]

Look, I think Black Box and others are correct about this- there is cause for concern here. I'd like to know more about it. I'd like for Congress to investigate (though, as always, it will likely be so partisan that who knows what will come of it.) I'm just not ready to accept the dire charges that some are making here. I think some sort of monitoring of group calls are a necessary tool to fight terrorism. I think that there needs to be a way to do this with independent judicial oversight in order to prevent the worst sort of abuses. Whether that's taking place now, or needs to be fixed in order to take place, I have no idea.

 

[Fennis]

so much for the dinner party I was planning with IK and the Hokkaidos

 

[timschochet]

so much for the dinner party I was planning with IK and the Hokkaidos