MikeIke
Footballguy
At this point, unfortunately, I agree with you. And there weren't many bigger Bush haters than me.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter PlasmaDogPlasma
- Start date
phrozen
Footballguy
Officials: NSA mistakenly intercepted emails, phone calls of innocent Americans
By Michael IsikoffNational Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
The National Security Agency has at times mistakenly intercepted the private email messages and phone calls of Americans who had no link to terrorism, requiring Justice Department officials to report the errors to a secret national security court and destroy the data, according to two former U.S. intelligence officials. At least some of the phone calls and emails were pulled from among the hundreds of millions stored by telecommunications companies as part of an NSA surveillance program. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, Thursday night publicly acknowledged what he called “a sensitive intelligence collection program” after its existence was disclosed by the Guardian newspaper.
Ret. Adm. Dennis Blair, who served as President Obama’s DNI in 2009 and 2010, told NBC News that, in one instance in 2009, analysts entered a phone number into agency computers and “put one digit wrong,” and mined a large volume of information about Americans with no connection to terror. The matter was reported to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose judges required that all the data be destroyed, he said.
Another former senior official, who asked not to be identified, confirmed Blair’s recollection and said the incident created serious problems for the Justice Department, which represents the NSA before the federal judges on the secret court.
The judges “were really upset about this,” said the former official. As a result, Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to the judges that the intelligence agencies would take steps to correct the problem as a condition of renewing the NSA’s surveillance program.
The Justice Department publicly confirmed to the New York Times in April 2009 that Holder had taken “comprehensive steps” to correct a problem in NSA collection after it “detected issues that raised concerns.” But department officials declined to discuss details about what was described at the time as the “over-collection” of information.
Blair declined to say how many times the NSA had had to report the improper collection of information to the court, but indicated it had happened more than once. A spokesman for current DNI Clapper declined comment.
The 2009 incident that Blair described may shed light on an exchange between Clapper and Sen. Ron Wyden, D.-Ore., at a March hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Asked by Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper replied, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps collect-but not wittingly.”
Blair drew a distinction between the “collection” or mining of data on specific U.S. citizens by NSA and the massive trove of phone call information that was turned over to the NSA under a negotiated agreement among intelligence officials, the telecommunications companies and the FISA judges. The purpose of the FISA order was to store information in the event that U.S. intelligence agencies need to access it after getting specific intelligence that somebody in the U.S. might be tied to terrorism. It is only at that point, he explained, that the NSA goes back to the court to get permission to mine or “collect” the data.
But the intelligence community’s distinction between “storing” and “collecting” data does not satisfy privacy and civil liberties advocates. “They are playing games,” said Cindy Cohn, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing U.S. phone companies over their cooperation with the NSA. Of the improper collection acknowledged by Blair, she said, “Who knows how many times this has happened?"
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18831985-officials-nsa-mistakenly-intercepted-emails-phone-calls-of-innocent-americans
By Michael IsikoffNational Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
The National Security Agency has at times mistakenly intercepted the private email messages and phone calls of Americans who had no link to terrorism, requiring Justice Department officials to report the errors to a secret national security court and destroy the data, according to two former U.S. intelligence officials. At least some of the phone calls and emails were pulled from among the hundreds of millions stored by telecommunications companies as part of an NSA surveillance program. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, Thursday night publicly acknowledged what he called “a sensitive intelligence collection program” after its existence was disclosed by the Guardian newspaper.
Ret. Adm. Dennis Blair, who served as President Obama’s DNI in 2009 and 2010, told NBC News that, in one instance in 2009, analysts entered a phone number into agency computers and “put one digit wrong,” and mined a large volume of information about Americans with no connection to terror. The matter was reported to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose judges required that all the data be destroyed, he said.
Another former senior official, who asked not to be identified, confirmed Blair’s recollection and said the incident created serious problems for the Justice Department, which represents the NSA before the federal judges on the secret court.
The judges “were really upset about this,” said the former official. As a result, Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to the judges that the intelligence agencies would take steps to correct the problem as a condition of renewing the NSA’s surveillance program.
The Justice Department publicly confirmed to the New York Times in April 2009 that Holder had taken “comprehensive steps” to correct a problem in NSA collection after it “detected issues that raised concerns.” But department officials declined to discuss details about what was described at the time as the “over-collection” of information.
Blair declined to say how many times the NSA had had to report the improper collection of information to the court, but indicated it had happened more than once. A spokesman for current DNI Clapper declined comment.
The 2009 incident that Blair described may shed light on an exchange between Clapper and Sen. Ron Wyden, D.-Ore., at a March hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Asked by Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper replied, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps collect-but not wittingly.”
Blair drew a distinction between the “collection” or mining of data on specific U.S. citizens by NSA and the massive trove of phone call information that was turned over to the NSA under a negotiated agreement among intelligence officials, the telecommunications companies and the FISA judges. The purpose of the FISA order was to store information in the event that U.S. intelligence agencies need to access it after getting specific intelligence that somebody in the U.S. might be tied to terrorism. It is only at that point, he explained, that the NSA goes back to the court to get permission to mine or “collect” the data.
But the intelligence community’s distinction between “storing” and “collecting” data does not satisfy privacy and civil liberties advocates. “They are playing games,” said Cindy Cohn, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing U.S. phone companies over their cooperation with the NSA. Of the improper collection acknowledged by Blair, she said, “Who knows how many times this has happened?"
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18831985-officials-nsa-mistakenly-intercepted-emails-phone-calls-of-innocent-americans
Gr00vus
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I suspect the only real difference is that we know about it now. All this stuff seems to have come into existence after the warrantless surveillance program was revealed in 2007.
CTRL + Q to Enable/Disable GoPhoto.it
MikeIke
Footballguy
No, the difference is that Obama was supposed to put an end to the policies that were put in place before his presidency. That's what he campaigned on, and that's why I voted for him. Instead he's gone beyond what Bush did and claimed it's all good in the name of national security.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
He was? You may be confusing his stances/votes on certain issues.
I know Clinton slammed him for voting Yes on he Patriot act. I know he voted Yes on FISA.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
MikeIke
Footballguy
I take your point but, yes, during the 2007-2008 campaign basically Obama was going to undo all the damage Bush did. To this point he's severely underperformed on that. To say the least. To put it more strongly, he lied to us all and now we're seeing the results.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
You are hearing what you wanted to hear I'm afraid. 
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
You are seriously saying Obama didn't campaign against Bush's Civil liberties record?
Fennis
Footballguy
once. i also voted for bush once, too. apparently i am fooled once easily.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
He said he was going to go after the Terrorist. And he certainly has.
His biggest backtrack from his campaign, somewhat ironically, is on drugs.
And the other is that he certainly hasnt been open/transparent like he said he was going to be, But I don't know if he has much of a choice without causing undo harm or retarding efforts..
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Wait until the full assault of Obamacare kicks in and how it's NOT going to be anything like they said it would be. How many more times can this guy lie to you and you still defend him?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I know he went after the habeus corpus stuff.
But his voting record on intel is open for everyone to see... he voted for most all forms of it.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
If by "the Terrorist" you mean the American people, then yes, you are right. When a liberal loses the NY Times you know it's not good.
Fennis
Footballguy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-07/obama-surveillence-defies-campaign-civil-liberty-pledge.html
Bush “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom,” Obama said in an Aug. 1, 2007 speech in Washington.
“We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary,” Obama added. “This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America.”
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Is he acting under the laws as they sit? Or is he breaking them and making up new ones?
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
I can't hold a candle to you. You have a special brand of stupid that trumps all others.
drummer
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
I believe he is acting unconstitutionally. He is also not living up to the promises of his campaign or presidency when it comes to civil liberties. His policies are horrible.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
drummer
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
See what I mean? Your kind of stupid stands on it's own above all others.
Maybe you should follow your own advice.
drummer
Footballguy
drummer
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
You think our laws that govern such things are unconstitutional? That's kind of on you. Which is how I was pulled into this vein of disucssion. MikeIke transferred his wishes onto Obama, instead of looking at Obamas clear-as-day action/votes.Why don't we have a congressman (like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders) pushing this "unconstitutional" fight through the courts? It was, after all, allowed to be a law and to be legal to use.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
drummer
Footballguy
eurotrashman
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yeah, he voted FOR not allowing electronic agencies to be immune from liabilities on information they collect and then provided to the Govt.
Fennis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Its been amended(circumvented) legally via the patriots act and other implementations. So it is constitutional.
I dont like it. You dont like it. MikeIke dont like it. But thats neither here nor there when discussing whats transpiring.
Fennis
Footballguy
Winning a Constitutional battle over classified national security issues is impossible.
Defend the president all you like, but he deserves to be severely criticized for harmful and bad policies.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Actually isnt it the Providers who are collecting the data... then must turn it over if requested?
I know at one time they didnt have to collect the data, but chose to for monetary reason and then it became subjected to government scrutiny.
I know at one time they didnt have to collect the data, but chose to for monetary reason and then it became subjected to government scrutiny.
Fennis
Footballguy
The collectors of this data deserve to be criticized too. Hopefully, a fall out of this will be consumer data will go back to be protected and remain private, but the fact that the data exists for commercial reasons doesn’t excuse the actions of the government.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
JHC. You'll do or say anything to avoid criticizing Obama. Wow. You just can't do it. yet you were first in line blaming Bush for everything under the sun.
Why not just blame it on the children while you're at it?
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yeah, I think he should be skewered for that out of control military spending. As well as for our nations people stuck in poverty.
He deserves to be criticized for every harmful and bad policy this country has. That sounds about right Fennis.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
My question remains (Im unsure how its now set)..... MUST they collect the information?
I know they MUST turn over whatever they have. But can they not collect?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Similar threads
