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!
I didn't request all of them. I've actually tried to read most or all of them. But if there is evidence that the mass collection of data is being deliberately abused by the NSA and innocent people are being harmed as a result, then I've missed that part. That's why I asked you to link a few of them again which highlight this point.
I don't know how high it goes. If they were aware of the abuse and allowed it to continue, then the answer is yes. Of course.
But there isn't. The NSA gets it's info from a variety of sources. The whole point of this thread is about Snowden's specific revelations that the NSA collected mass emails and phone calls without individual warrants for each separate email and phone call. It is that process which I have attempted to defend, which I think is justified in order to fight terrorism. If you think that means I'm automatically going to defend every single damn thing the NSA does, you're wrong. I don't have a clue about everything they're doing, and I'm not going to automatically defend everything. I'm defending the mass collection of data as justifiable. That's all.
Your request for a few is denied. Read ALL OF THEM or else you are choosing a degree of ignorance that you are comfortable with.
The whole point of the NSA is to collect massive amounts of data. Whether it is phone calls, emails, video chats, web history, financial transactions, or any other private data. What the heck do you think they are sharing? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?But there isn't. The NSA gets it's info from a variety of sources. The whole point of this thread is about Snowden's specific revelations that the NSA collected mass emails and phone calls without individual warrants for each separate email and phone call. It is that process which I have attempted to defend, which I think is justified in order to fight terrorism. If you think that means I'm automatically going to defend every single damn thing the NSA does, you're wrong. I don't have a clue about everything they're doing, and I'm not going to automatically defend everything. I'm defending the mass collection of data as justifiable. That's all.
OK thanks. This article has information that the other one didn't. Specifically it states:
So now I'm ruining the thread by engaging in honest discussion and debate? Are you really looking for an Amen corner? Can't stand to have anyone disagree with you? I've just conceded that if the DEA stuff is true it would change my opinion on this entire story. If that's not enough evidence that I'm not a troll and not fishing, don't know if anything would convince you.
It is pretty clear (as Spock previously mentioned) the NSA is getting their claws into anything and everything it can like Charlie Sheen on a coke binge attempting to tap any porn star that will return his calls and accept his money.This may be redundant now that you've read the second article I linked, but... If the NSA is sharing information that it both A) obtained legally in the first place, and B) was allowed to share (i.e. use for purposes other than "fighting terrorism"), then the sharing of information wouldn't be an issue in the first place. The fact that they know the information isn't supposed to be flowing to the DEA, and have instructed the DEA to lie about its sources, tells us that, yes, the information being shared is information that they've collected through this or other questionable programs.
If it's true...then you're right. I agree.
Youve made it exceedingly clear what you think of me, but it is still disappointing to read this.
Tim....It's tough to take comments like this seriously. There's a whole group of people here who are talking about the big picture and posting articles about such. You've managed to backpedal yourself into a corner, talking specifically about instances where the NSA has used their data to hurt innocent people. This thread isn't about that. It's about the overreaching potential of our government on the people. It's not about using data against innocent people. It's about collecting data without consent....guilt and innocence has nothing to do with it.timschochet said:
Fairly correct, though there are a few things that aren't quite accurate:Rich Conway said:
I would hope this also sparks a huge debate and a re-thinking of our privacy laws.
I am not sure laws about how they can use/share it will do much good. The abuse happens when they collect everything electronic about your life. Of course it will be used and shared once they have it, whether for personal or political purposes. It is too powerful of a tool for Congress to constrain if they allow it exist.
We are on the same page for sure.
Yet another excellent reason to keep the data separated and stored in the unrelated repositories in which it is initially gathered (read: the private companies who own it) with specific retention statutes. This way, the pieces are kept out of the hands of the compiling authority who only connects the dots after a warrant from a court of law allows it to go out and get the dots to connect. It would be much harder for a third party to connect the dots if the dots are all stored separately.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documentsThe National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.
"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.
In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.
"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA's surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner.
In another top secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."
The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [israel] operations."
The Guardian asked the Obama administration how many times US data had been found in the raw intelligence, either by the Israelis or when the NSA reviewed a sample of the files, but officials declined to provide this information. Nor would they disclose how many other countries the NSA shared raw data with, or whether the Fisa court, which is meant to oversee NSA surveillance programs and the procedures to handle US information, had signed off the agreement with Israel.
In its statement, the NSA said: "We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.
"NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information."
I think we should focus on both.
It's not going well then
It's completely lost in the aforementioned backpedal I mentioned. There's been many links posted where courts have ruled the collection of this data as unconstitutional, yet you keep saying "I'll wait for the courts to rule" stuff....well, they have ruled and it's not going well.
The answer to your question seems pretty clear.
Of course I read it. I don't think you get my point. If the information gathered by the NSA was legally obtained (and this remains an open question, at least IMO) then there's nothing wrong with giving it to Israel. If the information was illegally obtained, then giving it to Israel doesn't matter because they shouldn't have it in the first place. Either way, the Israeli connection is irrelevant, IMO.
What's pretty clear is that they're not willing to divulge how they do things to the press (except to claim that they're not breaking any laws.)
I want it to go to the Supreme Court.It's not going well then
You're joking, right?
I really don't get this either. You should be able to make a judgment for yourself whether this is acceptable. I have. PSpock has. Slapdash has. Our judgment is that even if SCOTUS rules that the mass collection of data is Constitutional, SCOTUS would be wrong. It's not acceptable, period. You're very big on "appeal to authority" as a debate tactic. It's not a good tactic.I want it to go to the Supreme Court.It's not going well then
Just to touch on this comment for a second.
But it's not a contradiction. The whole purpose for the collected information is to fight terrorism. Sharing it with Israel, or with other international intelligence agencies who fight terrorism, is a proper use of the information. Sharing it with the DEA or IRS is not, because those organizations do not fight terrorism. You may take issue with this, but I am being consistent here.
To restate: I believe that the mass collection of emails and phone calls can be done without the necessity of an individual warrant for each email or phone call. I believe that a single collective mass warrant is acceptable. That is my position.I really don't get this either. You should be able to make a judgment for yourself whether this is acceptable. I have. PSpock has. Slapdash has. Our judgment is that even if SCOTUS rules that the mass collection of data is Constitutional, SCOTUS would be wrong. It's not acceptable, period. You're very big on "appeal to authority" as a debate tactic. It's not a good tactic.I want it to go to the Supreme Court.It's not going well then
Why? What's wrong with the lower court ruling? The only reason I can come up with is because you don't like what the lower courts have to say. If that's the case, then that belief alone tells me there is no "debate" to be discussed with you.I want it to go to the Supreme Court.It's not going well then
the article also states:
I don't believe the lower court ruling is correct, because I think a mass warrant is acceptable under the 4th Amendment. It's an issue I'm perfectly willing to discuss and debate- I have done so at length. I have posted opinions by constitutional experts which agreed with my POV on this. If you want to discuss it I'm eager to do so (though I have to run at the moment, will be back in a few hours.)Why? What's wrong with the lower court ruling? The only reason I can come up with is because you don't like what the lower courts have to say. If that's the case, then that belief alone tells me there is no "debate" to be discussed with you.I want it to go to the Supreme Court.It's not going well then
Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either they shared raw data or they didn't.
Realistically -- and completely sidestepping any legal/constitutional concerns -- the NSA (or whatever deep-cover agency they're fronting for) doesn't have to do anything. Any program-scrapping, revelation of specifics, etc. will be only so much theater.
That's true. I was speaking of my own position. For whatever it's worth (very little) my position on this matter would change if at some point the NSA doesn't reveal more of it's methods.
