Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2013, 02:27:59 PM
From everything I have read... and heard... from Mr Obama, Diane Feinstien... and a slew of others... a warrant is indeed required to listen to the actual conversations. That warrant is issued by a panel of Federal judges (who rotate through) only after a case is made for probable cause.
I quoted you BT because what you wrote above seems to be dead wrong based on news that just broke from this week's secret congressional briefing on NSA surveillance (which 53 out of 100 Senators skipped, by the way). Not only is no warrant allegedly needed to listen in on the phone calls of any American, but
thousands of low-ranking NSA analysts may have also been given the green light to snoop on US phone calls, text messages, email, instant messages, etc. for any reason, at their discretion.
I sincerely hope that people understand how horrifying the implications of this could be for a free press, a free people, and a healthy democracy.
Quotehttp://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."
There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."
The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET.
Trust forever broken:
(This is just 8 days ago)
(http://i.minus.com/iA4e4GLGwlevc.gif)
I can't even bring myself to get pissed off anymore so I leave you with
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vpE6uMJ37dk/UOScrne47aI/AAAAAAAAEL4/Ki-4IWO-SoY/s1600/ron-paul.gif)
The most chilling line to me was,
"McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants"
The NSA did not admit to this and the headline has since been changed and the article amended.
Former VP Cheney responds:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/cheney-nsa-monitoring-could-have-prevented-911/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/cheney-nsa-monitoring-could-have-prevented-911/)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_dick_cheney_jt_130616_wblog.jpg)
Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs today, saying that had they been in effect over a decade ago, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might have been prevented.
“Now, as everybody has been associated with the program said if we had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego, two hijackers able to use that program, that capability against the target, we might have been able to prevent 9/11,†Cheney said on “FOX News Sunday.†“If we had been able to read their mail and intercept those communications and pick up from the calls overseas the numbers here that they were using in the United States, we would then probably have been able to thwart that attack.â€
Cheney’s defense of the programs, which he advocated for following the attacks on 9/11, come shortly after top U.S. intelligence officials said the information obtained from the NSA surveillance program thwarted potential terrorist plots in the U.S. and over 20 other countries.
Cheney described Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who leaked details about the agency’s surveillance programs, as a “traitor†and said this incident is one of the worst security breaches in U.S. history.
“I think he’s a traitor. I think he has committed crimes in effect by violating agreements, given the position he had. He was a contractor employee, but he obviously had been granted top secret clearance,†Cheney said. “I think it’s one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States.â€
Though he sided with the current administration’s execution of the electronic monitoring, Cheney still criticized President Obama. He said the president is unable to defend the program because he lacks credibility due to his handling of the IRS scandal and the response to the attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
“We have got an important point where the president of the United States ought to be able to stand up and say, this is a righteous program, it is a good program, it is saving American lives, and I support it. And the problem is the guy has failed to be forthright and honest and credible on things like Benghazi and the IRS. So he’s got no credibility,†Cheney said.
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said today that the president does not believe the NSA program violates the privacy of Americans and said Obama will discuss the electronic surveillance “in the days ahead.â€
“We find ourselves communicating in different ways, but that means the bad guys are doing that as well, so we have to find the right the balance between protecting our privacy, which is sacrosanct to the president, and protecting the country from the very real risks and threats that we face,†McDonough said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.â€
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2013, 10:55:03 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2013, 02:27:59 PM
From everything I have read... and heard... from Mr Obama, Diane Feinstien... and a slew of others... a warrant is indeed required to listen to the actual conversations. That warrant is issued by a panel of Federal judges (who rotate through) only after a case is made for probable cause.
I quoted you BT because what you wrote above seems to be dead wrong based on news that just broke from this week's secret congressional briefing on NSA surveillance (which 53 out of 100 Senators skipped, by the way). Not only is no warrant allegedly needed to listen in on the phone calls of any American, but thousands of low-ranking NSA analysts may have also been given the green light to snoop on US phone calls, text messages, email, instant messages, etc. for any reason, at their discretion.
I sincerely hope that people understand how horrifying the implications of this could be for a free press, a free people, and a healthy democracy.
Quotehttp://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."
There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."
The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET.
Trust forever broken:
(This is just 8 days ago)
(http://i.minus.com/iA4e4GLGwlevc.gif)
Well Ken... respectfully... it is not "dead wrong". As I have said... IF the protections that are in the law are NOT being followed as the President and Ms. Feinstein keep repeating... then I join you inyour "horror". For me... there is no where near enough evidence for me to be "horrified". The Snowden disclosure hints at misconduct... but really does not come close to proving it.
I do find it funny though that there are so many people out there willing to call Mr Obama a liar based on Snowdens disclosure...
Did you not read the CNET article?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 17, 2013, 06:46:41 AM
For me... there is no where near enough evidence for me to be "horrified". The Snowden disclosure hints at misconduct... but really does not come close to proving it.
I do find it funny though that there are so many people out there willing to call Mr Obama a liar based on Snowdens disclosure...
If you don't believe Snowden, three more senior-level NSA officials with decades of experience between them have just come out in support of him.
From USA Today this morning.
Check out the full link for in-depth interview with video.
Quotehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
3 Senior NSA Veterans Speak Out - Snowden was Right
In a roundtable discussion, a trio of former National Security Agency whistle-blowers tell USA TODAY that Edward Snowden succeeded where they failed.
When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the government's collection of Americans' phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence veterans breathed a sigh of relief.
Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.
For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.
To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime.
Today, they feel vindicated.
They say the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor who worked as a systems administrator, proves their claims of sweeping government surveillance of millions of Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. They say those revelations only hint at the programs' reach.
On Friday, USA TODAY brought Drake, Binney and Wiebe together for the first time since the story broke to discuss the NSA revelations. With their lawyer, Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, they weighed their implications and their repercussions. They disputed the administration's claim of the impact of the disclosures on national security â€" and President Obama's argument that Congress and the courts are providing effective oversight.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 17, 2013, 08:47:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 17, 2013, 06:46:41 AM
For me... there is no where near enough evidence for me to be "horrified". The Snowden disclosure hints at misconduct... but really does not come close to proving it.
I do find it funny though that there are so many people out there willing to call Mr Obama a liar based on Snowdens disclosure...
If you don't believe Snowden, three more senior-level NSA officials with decades of experience between them have just come out in support of him.
From USA Today this morning.
Check out the full link for in-depth interview with video.
Quotehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
3 Senior NSA Veterans Speak Out - Snowden was Right
In a roundtable discussion, a trio of former National Security Agency whistle-blowers tell USA TODAY that Edward Snowden succeeded where they failed.
When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the government's collection of Americans' phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence veterans breathed a sigh of relief.
Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.
For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.
To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime.
Today, they feel vindicated.
They say the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor who worked as a systems administrator, proves their claims of sweeping government surveillance of millions of Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. They say those revelations only hint at the programs' reach.
On Friday, USA TODAY brought Drake, Binney and Wiebe together for the first time since the story broke to discuss the NSA revelations. With their lawyer, Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, they weighed their implications and their repercussions. They disputed the administration's claim of the impact of the disclosures on national security â€" and President Obama's argument that Congress and the courts are providing effective oversight.
Again Ken... please do not put words into my mouth... I said...
QuoteFor me... there is no where near enough evidence for me to be "horrified". The Snowden disclosure hints at misconduct... but really does not come close to proving it.
I did NOT say I didnt believe Snowden. I simply refuse to give a fugitive and three who lost their jobs and clearances the credence you seem to be giving them. That is OK... I take no issue with those who have already signed on... I may just be the last one on the bus. There may very well be a need for more congressional and judicial oversight and protections. Are people within NSA not following the rules? Rogue employees listening to convos they are not authorized to listen to? Supervisors giving permissions they do not have? According to FISA Snowden and others were not following the law if they were listening to convos without a court order.
I have been less than trusting of the powers of the Federal government and for the most part have not been an Obama fan... but unlike many others... I need to see a bit more before I start calling the President a liar... 8)
Fair enough BT :)
I see where you're coming from.
Big accusations demand big proof, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to continue watching how things play out before forming a decisive opinion.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 17, 2013, 11:23:15 AM
Fair enough BT :)
I see where you're coming from.
Big accusations demand big proof, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to continue watching how things play out before forming a decisive opinion.
Cool! 8) That said... there are many intertwined issues and important discussions that people need to have. The headline of this thread is... "NSA Admits to Listening to Domestic U.S. Phone Calls without Warrants"
Is it OK with warrants? What about the "metadata"? Since sources and methods are involved just how open should the government be about disclosing this information? Many have decried the "secret court" that issues the warrants. Should it be secret? The headlines are full of this type of espionage by other countries... hacking by the Chinese etc... In the old days... spies had to be physically present to extract data... this is no longer the case. As witnessed in Boston... groups such as al qaida no longer need to send people here to kill and maim and the method of communication is untraceable cell phones, satellite phones with encryption and anonymous internet and email. The technology exists to monitor these types of traffic... and has for a long time. While many oppose the actions within the Patriot act... the act itself has codified the rules and laws regarding our ability to collect and interpret this data. It certainly has not been perfect and the act itself has been updated and changed over time. Protections for the rights of American citizens certainly need to be protected. The question is how.
The technology genie is out of the bottle... it will not go back in. How do we live with it? 8)
Live feed from congress...
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Politics