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

[timschochet]

Sorry Strike I've been gone all day and couldn't respond. When you said you've "read the quote" what exactly does that mean? Did you read the letters? There are two letters from Clapper. The first, dated June 21, 2013 to Diane Feinstein is here:

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/2013-06-21%20DNI%20Ltr%20to%20Sen.%20Feinstein.pdf

In this letter Clapper offers an apology for giving an "erroneous" answer to Senator Wyden, and admits to the collection of "metadata" , but denies collecting content- (hence my confusion about the terms.)

The second letter is dated March 28, 2014, to Senator Wyden is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1100298-unclassified-702-response.html

In this letter Clapper admits to collecting content (which is a direct contradiction of the earlier letter, and thus it APPEARS that Clapper is caught in a lie- though perhaps he can explain it- which is why I wrote that, based on what I know at this time, Clapper should be held in contempt of Congress.) It is this second letter that critics of the NSA are holding up as the "smoking gun", which indicates to them (and to you, apparently) that the NSA is indeed conducting warrantless searches and spying on the public.

However, you wrote of the above that "it's been proven", when in fact it hasn't. In the very same letter Clapper justifies his searches under section 702 of FISA, and states:

"These queries were performed pursuant to...qualifications approved by the FISA court as consistent with the statue and the Fourth Amendment."

Obviously, the NSA here, while admitting to searches it previously denied, continues to argue that these searches are legal and not unconstitutional. You don't have to agree with their argument (I'm quite sure you don't), but on the other hand, your assertion that they have admitted to warrantless searches and "spying on the American people" is untrue. They have not admitted that. Which is EXACTLY what I wrote earlier. And no matter how much you and Slapdash and anyone else might argue to the contrary, these issues remain a matter of subjectivity, NOT objectivity, and if I take a contrary view to your opinion of the matter, it's very much as legitimate as yours, because the courts have not yet decided this question.

Of course, if you disagree with my analysis, you're quite welcome to read through these two letters (they're very short) and see if you can find any admission that the NSA committed warrantless searches or spied on the American public. Or you can find Clapper's testimony on the matter, both before and after the Snowden revelations.

 

[Slapdash]

He is admitting the warrentless searches but still asserting their legality, it is in plain sight. Your contrary view of sticking your head in the sand about these searches happeninf is not valid.

Additionally, this and the numerous other programs released certaintly constituted "spying on Americans" . You can dispute the legality or morality all day, but that is not a subjective statement. Unless spying means something different in Newspeak.

 

[tom22406]

Tim please read this,it was posted before but you may have missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

 

[timschochet]

Tim please read this,it was posted before but you may have missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

I read it. Like most of the other articles, its a occlusion based on the letter that I posted. It calls the FISA rule Clapper cited in the letter s "backdoor"- others call it a loophole.The use of these terms suggest strong subjectivity. But my point is that Clapper himself calls it neither of these things. He regards it (FISA 702) as a justification, and he does not admit to warrant less searches.

 

[tom22406]

Tim please read this,it was posted before but you may have missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

I read it. Like most of the other articles, its a occlusion based on the letter that I posted. It calls the FISA rule Clapper cited in the letter s "backdoor"- others call it a loophole.The use of these terms suggest strong subjectivity. But my point is that Clapper himself calls it neither of these things. He regards it (FISA 702) as a justification, and he does not admit to warrant less searches.

A few Senators seem to disagree with you,from the same article

On Tuesday, Wyden and Udall said the NSA’s warrantless searches of Americans’ emails and phone calls “should be concerning to all.”

“This is unacceptable. It raises serious constitutional questions, and poses a real threat to the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans. If a government agency thinks that a particular American is engaged in terrorism or espionage, the fourth amendment requires that the government secure a warrant or emergency authorisation before monitoring his or her communications. This fact should be beyond dispute,” the two senators said in a joint statement.

They continued: “Today’s admission by the Director of National Intelligence is further proof that meaningful surveillance reform must include closing the back-door searches loophole and requiring the intelligence community to show probable cause before deliberately searching through data collected under section 702 to find the communications of individual Americans."

 

[timschochet]

He is admitting the warrentless searches but still asserting their legality, it is in plain sight. Your contrary view of sticking your head in the sand about these searches happeninf is not valid.

Additionally, this and the numerous other programs released certaintly constituted "spying on Americans" . You can dispute the legality or morality all day, but that is not a subjective statement. Unless spying means something different in Newspeak.

All right, I'm not going to quibble on the spying part. My point was he did not admit to it. But you're correct that searching through content and spying is not different enough from each other to have an argument about it. So I will concede your point and be done with it. But no, he does not admit to warrant less searches- he claims the FISA rule is itself the warrant that he needs, wich is why he invokes the 4th Amendment in his letter. Essentially he is claiming the FISA rule grants him a collective warrant. It's going to be up to the courts to decide whether or not this is legal.

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

 

[Slapdash]

He is admitting the warrentless searches but still asserting their legality, it is in plain sight. Your contrary view of sticking your head in the sand about these searches happeninf is not valid.

Additionally, this and the numerous other programs released certaintly constituted "spying on Americans" . You can dispute the legality or morality all day, but that is not a subjective statement. Unless spying means something different in Newspeak.

All right, I'm not going to quibble on the spying part. My point was he did not admit to it. But you're correct that searching through content and spying is not different enough from each other to have an argument about it. So I will concede your point and be done with it.But no, he does not admit to warrant less searches- he claims the FISA rule is itself the warrant that he needs, wich is why he invokes the 4th Amendment in his letter. Essentially he is claiming the FISA rule grants him a collective warrant. It's going to be up to the courts to decide whether or not this is legal.

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Mostly. He is saying they don't need a separate warrant to conduct personal searches and viewing of content already collected under a bulk data warrant. In other words, they don't need a warrant to target what they've already collected in the dragnet.

 

[RCon]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

 

[timschochet]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

No. I get that you don't see the distinction, but what I was arguing for was that it would be OK for the NSA to go to the FISA court each time and say, "We need a collective warrant for these million emails", and do that on a regular basis. The point was that the FISA court would act as an independent authority. That to me is very different from the NSA saying that FISA allows them to do this, now and forever.

It's not so much the number of items being searched- it could be a million or a billion or whatever- that's important to me, it's the timing. In April, if the NSA wants to search a million emails, they should obtain a collective warrant. But if this coming August they want to search through a new set of emails, then they should have to acquire another collective warrant. And so forth.

 

[The Commish]

Why are we glossing over the collecting of the data in the first place again? This is so bizarre to me. NSA collects data without a warrant but then has to have a warrant to look at the data? Is that what I'm hearing?

 

[RCon]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

No. I get that you don't see the distinction, but what I was arguing for was that it would be OK for the NSA to go to the FISA court each time and say, "We need a collective warrant for these million emails", and do that on a regular basis. The point was that the FISA court would act as an independent authority. That to me is very different from the NSA saying that FISA allows them to do this, now and forever.

It's not so much the number of items being searched- it could be a million or a billion or whatever- that's important to me, it's the timing. In April, if the NSA wants to search a million emails, they should obtain a collective warrant. But if this coming August they want to search through a new set of emails, then they should have to acquire another collective warrant. And so forth.

What "million e-mails"? If it's simply a request every single day for "every e-mail sent to/from everyone on [insert tomorrow's date]*", then that's not substantively any different than "every e-mail ever".

Give me an example of what you specifically envision them requesting?

 

[timschochet]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

No. I get that you don't see the distinction, but what I was arguing for was that it would be OK for the NSA to go to the FISA court each time and say, "We need a collective warrant for these million emails", and do that on a regular basis. The point was that the FISA court would act as an independent authority. That to me is very different from the NSA saying that FISA allows them to do this, now and forever.

It's not so much the number of items being searched- it could be a million or a billion or whatever- that's important to me, it's the timing. In April, if the NSA wants to search a million emails, they should obtain a collective warrant. But if this coming August they want to search through a new set of emails, then they should have to acquire another collective warrant. And so forth.

What "million e-mails"? If it's simply a request every single day for "every e-mail sent to/from everyone on [insert tomorrow's date]*", then that's not substantively any different than "every e-mail ever".

Give me an example of what you specifically envision them requesting?

It may seem silly to you but yes, every time they collect a bulk of new emails, however many they are, they should have to apply for a new FISA warrant for those emails.

 

[Slapdash]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

No. I get that you don't see the distinction, but what I was arguing for was that it would be OK for the NSA to go to the FISA court each time and say, "We need a collective warrant for these million emails", and do that on a regular basis. The point was that the FISA court would act as an independent authority. That to me is very different from the NSA saying that FISA allows them to do this, now and forever.

It's not so much the number of items being searched- it could be a million or a billion or whatever- that's important to me, it's the timing. In April, if the NSA wants to search a million emails, they should obtain a collective warrant. But if this coming August they want to search through a new set of emails, then they should have to acquire another collective warrant. And so forth.

What "million e-mails"? If it's simply a request every single day for "every e-mail sent to/from everyone on [insert tomorrow's date]*", then that's not substantively any different than "every e-mail ever".

Give me an example of what you specifically envision them requesting?

It may seem silly to you but yes, every time they collect a bulk of new emails, however many they are, they should have to apply for a new FISA warrant for those emails.

So you would imagine a warrant request every second then?

 

[RCon]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

No. I get that you don't see the distinction, but what I was arguing for was that it would be OK for the NSA to go to the FISA court each time and say, "We need a collective warrant for these million emails", and do that on a regular basis. The point was that the FISA court would act as an independent authority. That to me is very different from the NSA saying that FISA allows them to do this, now and forever.

It's not so much the number of items being searched- it could be a million or a billion or whatever- that's important to me, it's the timing. In April, if the NSA wants to search a million emails, they should obtain a collective warrant. But if this coming August they want to search through a new set of emails, then they should have to acquire another collective warrant. And so forth.

What "million e-mails"? If it's simply a request every single day for "every e-mail sent to/from everyone on [insert tomorrow's date]*", then that's not substantively any different than "every e-mail ever".

Give me an example of what you specifically envision them requesting?

It may seem silly to you but yes, every time they collect a bulk of new emails, however many they are, they should have to apply for a new FISA warrant for those emails.

A bulk of new e-mails? It's not like they're turning this on and off. It's "always on", collecting 24x7.

So basically, you're just asking for them to request a new warrant every day/week/month/whatever? So if they simply create this new rule in Outlook to automatically send a new warrant request, everything is good? No offense, but your position is getting dumber by the day.

 

[timschochet]

Sigh, yeah it's not what imagined. I probably need to rethink it. I honestly was OK with the idea of asking for a collective warrant for bulk information- but it can't be in perpetuity.

 

[The Commish]

To be honest? Not that you care, but the more times I read that letter the more I am troubled by it. As you know I was OK with the principle of collective warrants, but only if you went to a FISA court each time and said "we need this million emails" or "we need that million phone calls";etc. if I'm reading this letter correctly Clapper appears to be saying that this FISA rule allows him to obtain this information in perpetuity- one warrant for everything all time-not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier letter to Feinstein which appears to claim the collection was limited to metadata and not content. I don't like it. I want to believe in the NSA, but they make it very difficult.

Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along should be legal? One "collective warrant" to collect and analyze everything, as long as it's "performed in bulk".

No. I get that you don't see the distinction, but what I was arguing for was that it would be OK for the NSA to go to the FISA court each time and say, "We need a collective warrant for these million emails", and do that on a regular basis. The point was that the FISA court would act as an independent authority. That to me is very different from the NSA saying that FISA allows them to do this, now and forever.

It's not so much the number of items being searched- it could be a million or a billion or whatever- that's important to me, it's the timing. In April, if the NSA wants to search a million emails, they should obtain a collective warrant. But if this coming August they want to search through a new set of emails, then they should have to acquire another collective warrant. And so forth.

What "million e-mails"? If it's simply a request every single day for "every e-mail sent to/from everyone on [insert tomorrow's date]*", then that's not substantively any different than "every e-mail ever".

Give me an example of what you specifically envision them requesting?

It may seem silly to you but yes, every time they collect a bulk of new emails, however many they are, they should have to apply for a new FISA warrant for those emails.

So you would imagine a warrant request every second fraction of a millisecond then?

fixed

 

[Slapdash]

Sigh, yeah it's not what imagined. I probably need to rethink it. I honestly was OK with the idea of asking for a collective warrant for bulk information- but it can't be in perpetuity.

But, again, that would bear no resemblance to reality.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and there appears to be no way I can maintain my previous position and be intellectually honest. I can't deny that Slapdash and Rich are right, that given the amount and rapidity of emails and phone calls being collected, the notion of a "collective warrant" is really a meaningless term. In effect, if the NSA is going to have access to this information, for all practical purposes they are collecting it without any warrant. You guys were right about this; I was wrong. Go ahead and feel free to chastise me for not seeing it earlier.

The question remains whether or not the NSA has the legal right, as Clapper claims they do, to conduct warrantless searches under FISA. That is for the courts to decide, but for me, I'm forced to reverse my previous position. That position, based on the judges' ruling several months back which I posted here, is that it's OK for the NSA to obtain collective warrants for bulk data. I found that idea compelling. But if they're simply going to collect data without any warrant whatsoever, with no actual oversight, I can't justify that.

I don't want this to be the final word. There may be a point in the future where new information is revealed, or a new compelling argument is provided which I hadn't previously considered, which will cause me to change my mind once again. Frankly, I admit that I hope that this is the case. Unlike so many of you, I am very sympathetic to the NSA. I think their goals are worthwhile: to fight terrorism, to help keep this country safe from terrorist threat. I don't believe they have any ulterior motives. But it seems painfully clear they're abusing their power.

 

[The Commish]

You're coming along Tim. Now, the question before any of this is if they are allowed to collect data at all without a warrant. Nevermind the searching of that data without a warrant for now. Do you see how it's problematic to even be collecting the data in the first place? For me, personally, I have no issue with the collection of data if it's purged on a frequent basis...especially if it's data acquired on a government owned network. Say you want to keep the data for a couple days, fine...anything beyond that requires a warrant.

 

[timschochet]

You're coming along Tim. Now, the question before any of this is if they are allowed to collect data at all without a warrant. Nevermind the searching of that data without a warrant for now. Do you see how it's problematic to even be collecting the data in the first place? For me, personally, I have no issue with the collection of data if it's purged on a frequent basis...especially if it's data acquired on a government owned network. Say you want to keep the data for a couple days, fine...anything beyond that requires a warrant.

As to the bolded, yes. And I agree with this. But who's to monitor to make they're doing it? That's the problem which I can't solve in my mind. That's what makes it problematic.

Also, the other thing that really bothers me more and more is that if you compare Clapper's testimony with his first letter to Feinstein and then his second letter to Wyden, it's pretty clear he's been lying all along. I'm feeling kinda stupid and ashamed right now for defending the guy. Because I'm sympathetic to the NSA, I wanted to believe him. But he appears to be very dishonest.

 

[The Commish]

You're coming along Tim. Now, the question before any of this is if they are allowed to collect data at all without a warrant. Nevermind the searching of that data without a warrant for now. Do you see how it's problematic to even be collecting the data in the first place? For me, personally, I have no issue with the collection of data if it's purged on a frequent basis...especially if it's data acquired on a government owned network. Say you want to keep the data for a couple days, fine...anything beyond that requires a warrant.

As to the bolded, yes. And I agree with this. But who's to monitor to make they're doing it? That's the problem which I can't solve in my mind. That's what makes it problematic.

Also, the other thing that really bothers me more and more is that if you compare Clapper's testimony with his first letter to Feinstein and then his second letter to Wyden, it's pretty clear he's been lying all along. I'm feeling kinda stupid and ashamed right now for defending the guy. Because I'm sympathetic to the NSA, I wanted to believe him. But he appears to be very dishonest.

I made a comment a couple pages back that everyone in this society has to be responsible to someone else. When that ceases to happen, the system is essentially broken and ideology goes out the window. Sounds like that's the realization you're coming to and it's one that a lot of us have concerns with. It's a problem that we can't solve so we assume the worst and hope for the best.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and there appears to be no way I can maintain my previous position and be intellectually honest. I can't deny that Slapdash and Rich are right, that given the amount and rapidity of emails and phone calls being collected, the notion of a "collective warrant" is really a meaningless term. In effect, if the NSA is going to have access to this information, for all practical purposes they are collecting it without any warrant. You guys were right about this; I was wrong. Go ahead and feel free to chastise me for not seeing it earlier.

The question remains whether or not the NSA has the legal right, as Clapper claims they do, to conduct warrantless searches under FISA. That is for the courts to decide, but for me, I'm forced to reverse my previous position. That position, based on the judges' ruling several months back which I posted here, is that it's OK for the NSA to obtain collective warrants for bulk data. I found that idea compelling. But if they're simply going to collect data without any warrant whatsoever, with no actual oversight, I can't justify that.

I don't want this to be the final word. There may be a point in the future where new information is revealed, or a new compelling argument is provided which I hadn't previously considered, which will cause me to change my mind once again. Frankly, I admit that I hope that this is the case. Unlike so many of you, I am very sympathetic to the NSA. I think their goals are worthwhile: to fight terrorism, to help keep this country safe from terrorist threat. I don't believe they have any ulterior motives. But it seems painfully clear they're abusing their power.

Tim, I'm not going to chastise you for changing your mind or having differing opinions. The thing that really annoyed me is that you seem to be operating from a different set of facts about what is occurring or to put your arguments on a fully theoretical ground.

I'm willing to imagine that theoretical world with you, but speaking about it often has had the effect of obscuring reality. It seems to be a tactic that the government and the press have been using to muddy the waters, but it is easier to confront you about it than them.

 

[RCon]

You're coming along Tim. Now, the question before any of this is if they are allowed to collect data at all without a warrant. Nevermind the searching of that data without a warrant for now. Do you see how it's problematic to even be collecting the data in the first place? For me, personally, I have no issue with the collection of data if it's purged on a frequent basis...especially if it's data acquired on a government owned network. Say you want to keep the data for a couple days, fine...anything beyond that requires a warrant.

As to the bolded, yes. And I agree with this. But who's to monitor to make they're doing it? That's the problem which I can't solve in my mind. That's what makes it problematic.

Also, the other thing that really bothers me more and more is that if you compare Clapper's testimony with his first letter to Feinstein and then his second letter to Wyden, it's pretty clear he's been lying all along. I'm feeling kinda stupid and ashamed right now for defending the guy. Because I'm sympathetic to the NSA, I wanted to believe him. But he appears to be very dishonest.

You know how you can tell Clapper is lying...

 

[timschochet]

OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and there appears to be no way I can maintain my previous position and be intellectually honest. I can't deny that Slapdash and Rich are right, that given the amount and rapidity of emails and phone calls being collected, the notion of a "collective warrant" is really a meaningless term. In effect, if the NSA is going to have access to this information, for all practical purposes they are collecting it without any warrant. You guys were right about this; I was wrong. Go ahead and feel free to chastise me for not seeing it earlier.

The question remains whether or not the NSA has the legal right, as Clapper claims they do, to conduct warrantless searches under FISA. That is for the courts to decide, but for me, I'm forced to reverse my previous position. That position, based on the judges' ruling several months back which I posted here, is that it's OK for the NSA to obtain collective warrants for bulk data. I found that idea compelling. But if they're simply going to collect data without any warrant whatsoever, with no actual oversight, I can't justify that.

I don't want this to be the final word. There may be a point in the future where new information is revealed, or a new compelling argument is provided which I hadn't previously considered, which will cause me to change my mind once again. Frankly, I admit that I hope that this is the case. Unlike so many of you, I am very sympathetic to the NSA. I think their goals are worthwhile: to fight terrorism, to help keep this country safe from terrorist threat. I don't believe they have any ulterior motives. But it seems painfully clear they're abusing their power.

Tim, I'm not going to chastise you for changing your mind or having differing opinions. The thing that really annoyed me is that you seem to be operating from a different set of facts about what is occurring or to put your arguments on a fully theoretical ground.

I'm willing to imagine that theoretical world with you, but speaking about it often has had the effect of obscuring reality. It seems to be a tactic that the government and the press have been using to muddy the waters, but it is easier to confront you about it than them.

Fair enough, though you seem to be accusing the government and press of deliberate deception (by referring to it as a "tactic")- it was NOT deliberate on my part. I admit to misunderstanding the facts, and to applying flawed logic. But I didn't do either intentionally.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and there appears to be no way I can maintain my previous position and be intellectually honest. I can't deny that Slapdash and Rich are right, that given the amount and rapidity of emails and phone calls being collected, the notion of a "collective warrant" is really a meaningless term. In effect, if the NSA is going to have access to this information, for all practical purposes they are collecting it without any warrant. You guys were right about this; I was wrong. Go ahead and feel free to chastise me for not seeing it earlier.

The question remains whether or not the NSA has the legal right, as Clapper claims they do, to conduct warrantless searches under FISA. That is for the courts to decide, but for me, I'm forced to reverse my previous position. That position, based on the judges' ruling several months back which I posted here, is that it's OK for the NSA to obtain collective warrants for bulk data. I found that idea compelling. But if they're simply going to collect data without any warrant whatsoever, with no actual oversight, I can't justify that.

I don't want this to be the final word. There may be a point in the future where new information is revealed, or a new compelling argument is provided which I hadn't previously considered, which will cause me to change my mind once again. Frankly, I admit that I hope that this is the case. Unlike so many of you, I am very sympathetic to the NSA. I think their goals are worthwhile: to fight terrorism, to help keep this country safe from terrorist threat. I don't believe they have any ulterior motives. But it seems painfully clear they're abusing their power.

Tim, I'm not going to chastise you for changing your mind or having differing opinions. The thing that really annoyed me is that you seem to be operating from a different set of facts about what is occurring or to put your arguments on a fully theoretical ground.

I'm willing to imagine that theoretical world with you, but speaking about it often has had the effect of obscuring reality. It seems to be a tactic that the government and the press have been using to muddy the waters, but it is easier to confront you about it than them.

Fair enough, though you seem to be accusing the government and press of deliberate deception (by referring to it as a "tactic")- it was NOT deliberate on my part. I admit to misunderstanding the facts, and to applying flawed logic. But I didn't do either intentionally.

Yes, I am. However, it is possible that they themselves are being misinformed. I think that would have even more dire implications.

 

[RCon]

The government, at multiple levels, is definitely guilty of deliberate deception. I can't imagine that's even up for debate at this point.

I'd suggest the media isn't so much guilty of deliberate deception, as it is itself deceived and/or confused.

 

[Slapdash]

White House seeks legal immunity for firms that hand over customer data

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/license-plate-tracking/

 

[The Commish]

White House seeks legal immunity for firms that hand over customer data

Oh man.....hahahaha. I know what we track on people in our audit. Yes, it's all in the TOS (the fine print) but wait until someone is busted because of this data. Should be interesting. Layer on top of that the of immunity and we have the finest political goat rodeo of all time.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

PBS Frontline: United States of Secrets

Powerful stuff as per usual. The right kind of details are here for people to formulate their own conclusions about what really happened.

 

[tom22406]

This should be interesting

Greenwald's Finale: Naming Victims of Surveillance

The man who helped bring about the most significant leak in American intelligence history is to reveal names of US citizens targeted by their own government in what he promises will be the “biggest” revelation from nearly 2m classified files.

Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who received the trove of documents from Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, told The Sunday Times that Snowden’s legacy would be “shaped in large part” by this “finishing piece” still to come.

His plan to publish names will further unnerve an American intelligence establishment already reeling from 11 months of revelations about US government surveillance activities.

Greenwald, who is promoting his book No Place To Hide and is trailed by a documentary crew wherever he goes, was speaking in a boutique hotel near Harvard, where he was to appear with Noam Chomsky, the octogenarian leftist academic.

“One of the big questions when it comes to domestic spying is, ‘Who have been the NSA’s specific targets?’," he said.

“Are they political critics and dissidents and activists? Are they genuinely people we’d regard as terrorists?

What are the metrics and calculations that go into choosing those targets and what is done with the surveillance that is conducted? Those are the kinds of questions that I want to still answer.”

Greenwald said the names would be published via The Intercept, a website funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder and chairman of eBay. Greenwald left The Guardian, which published most of the Snowden revelations, last autumn to work for Omidyar.

“As with a fireworks show, you want to save your best for last,” Greenwald told GQ magazine. “The last one is the one where the sky is all covered in spectacular multicoloured hues.”

The publication last week of Greenwald’s book about the story behind Snowden’s leaks has re-ignited controversy about the motives of the young computer technician, who fled to Hong Kong nearly a year ago and was then given refuge by Russia, which has resisted US demands to extradite him.

Greenwald has even debated Gen Michael Hayden, a former NSA and CIA director, in Toronto. A famously aggressive and relentless former lawyer, Greenwald refused to engage in any social niceties with his adversary.

"I think that's he's a war criminal and belong in the Hague," he explained. "And so to shake his hand or chat with him at a cocktail party is something really unpleasant to me." Away from TV studios and debating chambers, however, Greenwald is affable and engaging.

There are even flashes of self-doubt. He confided that when he first met Snowden in Hong Kong "I wanted him to be this really presentable reliable figure so badly I was a little bit concerned my desires would influence or muddy my perceptions".

Some senior intelligence figures claim Snowden could have been a spy for China, Russia or even both — a notion that Greenwald rejects as "just a standard demonisation tactic".

Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the vast majority of what Snowden stole related to "military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures" - something the fugitive vehemently denies.

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence and another figure Greenwald wants jailed, has described Snowden’s actions as the “most massive and damaging theft of intelligence” ever carried out.

Snowden is believed to have used a “spider” such as Googlebot, an easily available automated web crawler that Google developed to find and index new pages on the web. After Snowden set parameters for how far the spider should range, investigators have concluded, it was able to collect data when he wasn’t present.

Jack Devine, a former CIA director of operations, said he did not believe Snowden had been a spy, but that he shared many psychological characteristics of American traitors such as his former colleague Aldrich Ames, who spent years betraying secrets to Russia and is now serving life in prison.

These included an inflated sense of cleverness and self-importance, clashes with superiors at work, a dissatisfaction with carrying out mundane tasks and a sense of being under-appreciated.

“If I saw it and I were [the Russians or the Chinese] I’d come running for him,” said Devine. “But I don’t think the system worked that well. Even if you spot a bad apple, it takes a lot to get them.”

Devine, author of the forthcoming Good Hunting: An American Spymaster’s Story, said Snowden’s current situation bore similarities to that of Kim Philby, the MI6 officer who spied for the Soviet Union and ended up in Russia, alone and vulnerable.

“The Russians have been doing espionage for a long time. They understand the psychology of discontented people. It would be most unusual if he were allowed to remain there as a guest for free.

“I don’t think he was a controlled asset but I think at the end of the day he will be.”

Greenwald said he and Snowden still speak nearly every day via an encrypted computer link. “Literally of all the people that I’ve ever met and now know in the world, Edward Snowden is by far the person most at peace and fulfilled as a human being,” he said.

Greenwald said the NSA’s failure to catch Snowden was part of the paradox that “there is this genuinely menacing system and at the same time are really inept about how they operate it’.

“Not only was he out there under their noses downloading huge amounts of documents without being detected but to this day they’re incapable of finding out what he took.”

Greenwald, who has 12 dogs, ranging in size from a Bernese mountain dog to a miniature pinscher, at his home in Brazil, also promised further revelations about GCHQ, the NSA’s British sister agency.

“The British are more unrestrained and vicious in their surveillance mindset than even the US.” he said. “When you go to the park in New York, you see these built-up muscular guys and they have these tiny Shih Tzu dogs.

“It will seem like a mismatch but the Shih Tzu is super-vicious and yapping. That’s how I see the relationship between the GCHQ and the NSA.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/26/greenwalds_finale_naming_victims_of_surveillance_122747.html#ixzz32uoRxXkR

 

[SacramentoBob]

 

[tom22406]

JOHN KERRY TAUNTS SNOWDEN: 'Man Up And Come Back'

Secretary of State John Kerry chided National Security Agency leak source Edward Snowden on Wednesday, telling him he "should man up and come back to the United States."
Kerry's comments came as Snowden's extensive interview with NBC's Brian Williams is set to air Wednesday night. Kerry was asked about an excerpt from the interview in which Snowden said he was trained by the U.S. government as a "spy," something that countered the Obama administration's previous assertions he was a low-level analyst.

Kerry dismissed Snowden's comments as twisting language, and he criticized Snowden for seeking asylum in "authoritarian" Russia.

"If he has a complaint about what’s wrong with American surveillance, come back here and stand in our system of justice and make his case," Kerry said.

"But instead he’s just sitting there taking pot shots at his country, violating his oath that he took when he took on the job he took, and betraying, I think, the fundamental agreement that he entered into when he became an employee. The fact is he has damaged his country very significantly, in many, many ways. He has hurt operational security. He has told terrorists what they can now do to be able to avoid detection, and I find it sad and disgraceful."

Snowden also said he never intended to end up Russia, but was forced to go there because Washington decided to "revoke my passport."

Kerry, who was participating in a round of interviews ahead of President Barack Obama's foreign-policy commencement speech Wednesday at West Point, told NBC's "Today" show that Snowden's answer was "dumb."

"Well, for a supposedly smart guy, that's a pretty dumb answer," Kerry said.

"Look, I’m not going to get into the who he was, what he was. Let me just say this: If Mr. Snowden wants to come back to the United States today, we'll have him on a flight today. We’d be delighted for him to come back. And he should."

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-edward-snowden-russia-brian-williams-interview-2014-5#ixzz331ogrob2

 

[Politician Spock]

Three minute video documentary of John Kerry

 

[tom22406]

Three minute video documentary of John Kerry

HFS!!!

 

[SacramentoBob]

Three minute video documentary of John Kerry

HFS!!!

WTF?

 

[tom22406]

I guess the better question is what aren't they doing?

The National Security Agency is harvesting huge numbers of images of people from communications that it intercepts through its global surveillance operations for use in sophisticated facial recognition programs, according to top-secret documents.

The spy agency’s reliance on facial recognition technology has grown significantly over the last four years as the agency has turned to new software to exploit the flood of images included in emails, text messages, social media, videoconferences and other communications, the N.S.A. documents reveal. Agency officials believe that technological advances could revolutionize the way that the N.S.A. finds intelligence targets around the world, the documents show. The agency’s ambitions for this highly sensitive ability and the scale of its effort have not previously been disclosed.

The agency intercepts “millions of images per day” — including about 55,000 “facial recognition quality images” — which translate into “tremendous untapped potential,” according to 2011 documents obtained from the former agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. While once focused on written and oral communications, the N.S.A. now considers facial images, fingerprints and other identifiers just as important to its mission of tracking suspected terrorists and other intelligence targets, the documents show.

Civil-liberties advocates and other critics are concerned that the power of the improving technology, used by government and industry, could erode privacy. “Facial recognition can be very invasive,” said Alessandro Acquisti, a researcher on facial recognition technology at Carnegie Mellon University. “There are still technical limitations on it, but the computational power keeps growing, and the databases keep growing, and the algorithms keep improving.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-millions-of-faces-from-web-images.html

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Verizon has been pestering me. They're not happy that I have not yet converted my telephone line.

I aim to be their last non- fiber optics customer in the Northeast.

 

[Todd Andrews]

A little bit of scary history about how we got here. I blame us all.

 

[The Commish]

A little bit of scary history about how we got here. I blame us all.

Wouldn't blame everyone, but I would blame all those that voted for these dopes that allow stuff like this to happen.

 

[Psychopav]

Did the final report come out yet, in which they discuss who is being specifically targeted?

 

[tom22406]

Did the final report come out yet, in which they discuss who is being specifically targeted?

Greenwald said it would be later in the summer and didn't give an actual date but as soon as I find it I will post it here.

I'm sure we will see some very interesting names on this.

 

[tom22406]

House Passes Bipartisan Bill Blocking Warrantless NSA Searches, Tech ‘Backdoors’

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – The House of Representatives passed a late-night vote on Thursday to cut funding to two of the National Security Agency’s most controversial practices: Warrantless collection of Americans’ online data and the installation of surveillance “backdoors” on commercial tech products — a measure being applauded by tech companies and privacy advocates.

The House voted 293-123 in favor of an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2015 that effectively cuts off funding for programs seeking “vulnerabilities” in US-made tech products, often referred to as “backdoors.” The amendment also prohibits warrantless collection of Americans’ online activity under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The bipartisan House vote – 135 Republicans, 158 Democrats — saw majority support in both parties and among tech industry officials, despite some leading members of both parties speaking out against the amendment as a threat to national security.

“The American people can be kept safe and we can follow the Constitution,” libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., told Roll Call. He added that the NSA and CIA should have a warrant to access Americans’ information, and that the NSA shouldn’t be spending money to put backdoors on tech products coming from this country.

Massie continued: When the government “causes these companies to intentionally make defects in their product, they make Americans less safe,” said Rep. Massie. “They make Americans’ data less safe, and they compromise the quality of American goods overseas. But ultimately this is about the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution, if you believe that it’s still valid, if you think we can honor the fourth amendment and that we can still keep people safe, I urge you to vote for this bill.”

According to The Guardian, a leaked report from June 2010 through the head of the NSA’s Access and Target Development department, described a program in which routers, servers, and other computer network devices were intercepted by the NSA and embedded with backdoor surveillance tools. That hardware was then repackaged and sent on to international customers.

Some experts warn that the amendment still doesn’t necessarily end all federal government “backdoor” programs, including FBI use of the technological spy tactic.

“The goal is clearly important. I worry that the scope…is limited,” Matt Blaze, a computer science professor and cryptographer at the University of Pennsylvania told Wired. “Even when the NSA and CIA don’t request or put pressure on vendors to incorporate backdoors, other agencies, like FBI, may be in the same business.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a large proponent of the amendment, praised the House approval, calling it “an important step in reining in the NSA” and its “invasive surveillance practices.”

Other tech companies including, Google, the American Library Association, and the ACLU were among a coalition that urged support for the measure.

“Both of these measures would make appreciable changes that would advance government surveillance reform and help rebuild lost trust among Internet users and businesses, while also preserving national security and intelligence authorities,” reads the letter, made available by The New America Foundation, a nonprofit organization that has been chaired by Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt since 2008.

But House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. Says the amendment endangers national security and aids terrorist regimes.

“Islamic radical terrorists are on the march in Iraq and the leader has publicly threatened to attack America,” he said. “Syria has become a vortex of jihadists from across the globe and the director of national intelligence and the director of homeland security have warned of the growing threat jihadists pose to our homeland. …This amendment would create a blind spot for the intelligence community tracking terrorists with direct connections to the U.S. homeland. …Such an impediment would put American lives at risk of another terrorist attack.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/20/house-passes-bipartisan-bill-against-warrantless-nsa-searches-tech-backdoors/

 

[The Commish]

All we did was weaken a country today. Am I right?

 

[Slapdash]

NSA targets the privacy-conscious

 

[tom22406]

The National Security Agency and FBI have covertly monitored the emails of prominent Muslim-Americans—including a political candidate and several civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers—under secretive procedures intended to target terrorists and foreign spies.

According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the list of Americans monitored by their own government includes:

• Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;

• Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;

• Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;

• Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;

• Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country.

The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called “FISA recap”—short for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also “are or may be” engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens.

The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

But a three-month investigation by The Intercept—including interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the FISA process—reveals that in practice, the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on U.S. citizens.

The five Americans whose email accounts were monitored by the NSA and FBI have all led highly public, outwardly exemplary lives. All five vehemently deny any involvement in terrorism or espionage, and none advocates violent jihad or is known to have been implicated in any crime, despite years of intense scrutiny by the government and the press. Some have even climbed the ranks of the U.S. national security and foreign policy establishments.

“I just don’t know why,” says Gill, whose AOL and Yahoo! email accounts were monitored while he was a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates. “I’ve done everything in my life to be patriotic. I served in the Navy, served in the government, was active in my community—I’ve done everything that a good citizen, in my opinion, should do.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/09/under-surveillance/

Only posted part of the article but I highly suggest reading the entire thing.

 

[tom22406]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

 

[drummer]

They are too busy dealing with contraception and Brinks employee's owning guns.

ETA: as well as Lebron's Decision II

PRIORITIES

 

[The Commish]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse.

All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

 

[Slapdash]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse.

All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's not like we can actually do anything about it...