If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Since the cat is already out of the bag the NSA is happy to share what they've been reading over your shoulder all these years   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 105
    More: Unlikely, NSA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA, political dissidents, D-Ore, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, phone surveillance  
•       •       •

6826 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jun 2013 at 12:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-07 10:53:46 AM
So basically they hold the data and segment it themselves rather than have the phone companies do intelligence work.
 
2013-06-07 11:10:49 AM
"Uproar"? "Disclosure"? Is there any thinking American alive today who didn't know our government is routinely and efficiently spying on us every day?
 
2013-06-07 11:18:51 AM
"I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.
 
2013-06-07 11:40:21 AM

shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.


Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.
 
2013-06-07 11:56:45 AM

James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.


Then this should be fun.
 
2013-06-07 12:02:01 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.

Then this should be fun.


I feel like the secretary of Defense has the authority to unclassify things.
 
2013-06-07 12:11:19 PM

James!: shifty lookin bleeder: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.

Then this should be fun.

I feel like the secretary of Defense has the authority to unclassify things.


That's nice.  Does the Office of the Vice President have that authority too?

Despite your feelings, there's a legal process to declassify information. Pretty sure Hollywood luncheon isn't a part of that process.
 
2013-06-07 12:13:15 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.

Then this should be fun.

I feel like the secretary of Defense has the authority to unclassify things.

That's nice.  Does the Office of the Vice President have that authority too?


I honestly don't know if they do, or what it has to do with the NSA.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-07 12:27:14 PM

James!: That's nice.  Does the Office of the Vice President have that authority too?

I honestly don't know if they do, or what it has to do with the NSA.


He was the DCIA, but the investigation isn't completed, so it may be interesting, but if he was told that the audience had clearance as the Politico article said than there wouldn't be the criminal intent that there was with Cheny.
 
2013-06-07 12:27:34 PM
Fox & Friends today:
"What is the objective of getting these numbers and collecting all these numbers from all the millions of Americans?" asked co-host Brian Kilmeade. "Are they overseas calls? Is there terror activity? Is there reason to be suspicious? Or is this abuse of the PATRIOT Act?"

Fox & Friends 2006:
"Let's call it the terrorist surveillance program. That would be a lot easier," said Kilmeade on January 25, 2006. "And more accurate," added Doocy.
"Yeah, more accurate too," Kilmeade lectured. "If you're for the NSA wiretapping without going to the FISA court, I guess warrantless, then most likely you're Republican. If you are against it, you most likely are a Democrat."
 
2013-06-07 12:36:32 PM

James!: I honestly don't know if they do, or what it has to do with the NSA.


Well, it has more to do with prosecuting people who release classified information than the NSA specifically.  Dick Cheney's office claimed that they had the authority declassify Valerie Plame's role at the CIA so they could do that in an interview with Judith Miller if and when they chose to do that.  The US attorney seemed to disagree with that, if I remember correctly.

You seem to be at once in favor of prosecuting people who share classified information illegally and against prosecuting people who share classified information illegally, so I'm just trying to get a handle on where your lines of demarcation are.  Obviously you wouldn't be in favor of holding different people accountable to different legal standards because that would run counter very basic legal tenets pertaining to the equal application of the law, and undermine the concept of equal justice under the law.
 
2013-06-07 12:37:21 PM
Treadstone upgrade is already up and running
 
2013-06-07 12:38:11 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.

Then this should be fun.

I feel like the secretary of Defense has the authority to unclassify things.

That's nice.  Does the Office of the Vice President have that authority too?

Despite your feelings, there's a legal process to declassify information. Pretty sure Hollywood luncheon isn't a part of that process.


*favorites shifty as "butthurt".*
 
2013-06-07 12:38:42 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: James!: I honestly don't know if they do, or what it has to do with the NSA.

Well, it has more to do with prosecuting people who release classified information than the NSA specifically.  Dick Cheney's office claimed that they had the authority declassify Valerie Plame's role at the CIA so they could do that in an interview with Judith Miller if and when they chose to do that.  The US attorney seemed to disagree with that, if I remember correctly.

You seem to be at once in favor of prosecuting people who share classified information illegally and against prosecuting people who share classified information illegally, so I'm just trying to get a handle on where your lines of demarcation are.  Obviously you wouldn't be in favor of holding different people accountable to different legal standards because that would run counter very basic legal tenets pertaining to the equal application of the law, and undermine the concept of equal justice under the law.


I said they will, not that I want or don't want them to.  Acknowledging a fact isn't the same as approving of a fact.
 
2013-06-07 12:38:52 PM
What if we stated all telephone calls with "Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad!"?

/fark yeah!
 
2013-06-07 12:39:27 PM
*started
 
2013-06-07 12:39:39 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.


I think the principles of its use are basically "fark you, we'll do what we want and you can't stop us"
 
2013-06-07 12:40:39 PM
So instead of going to the phone companies with a list of numbers that are suspect thus giving that information to a non-governmental entity with no clearance they pulled all records and searched for the correct numbers themselves.

I can understand why they would want to do it that way.
 
2013-06-07 12:41:01 PM
And by "share" they mean you can now look forward to a whole new slew of offers from marketers...
 
2013-06-07 12:41:02 PM
Call me a cockeyed optimist if you will, but I'd think this is something the right and the left could actually agree is bad...right?
 
2013-06-07 12:41:41 PM
Proof the terrorists won a long, long time ago.

/message approved by the NSA
//hell, this message was TYPED by the NSA
 
2013-06-07 12:42:43 PM

NightOwl2255: Fox & Friends today:
"What is the objective of getting these numbers and collecting all these numbers from all the millions of Americans?" asked co-host Brian Kilmeade. "Are they overseas calls? Is there terror activity? Is there reason to be suspicious? Or is this abuse of the PATRIOT Act?"

Fox & Friends 2006:
"Let's call it the terrorist surveillance program. That would be a lot easier," said Kilmeade on January 25, 2006. "And more accurate," added Doocy.
"Yeah, more accurate too," Kilmeade lectured. "If you're for the NSA wiretapping without going to the FISA court, I guess warrantless, then most likely you're Republican. If you are against it, you most likely are a Democrat."


This is my complete lack of surprise.  o_O
 
2013-06-07 12:42:57 PM
TFA: "legal, limited in scope and necessary to detect terrorist threats."

Oh, so they have specific foiled terrorist plots they can point to, discovered only because legislators gave them these tools and from which we can decide whether the cost has been worth the benefit? Because, ya know, if they haven't actually foiled anything -- and if these tools weren't the only plausible tool to do so -- saying it's 'necessary' is propaganda.

Luckily for them, the legislators also helpfully repealed the laws that prohibited the military/intelligence community from directing government-produced propaganda directly at the US populace.
 
2013-06-07 12:43:21 PM

LL316: Call me a cockeyed optimist if you will, but I'd think this is something the right and the left could actually agree is bad...right?


The president just made comments defending it, Dianne Feinstein was out defending it last night, and the Republicans created this.

Not sure how any politician see this as "bad."

Once the government gets power, it very rarely lets go.
 
2013-06-07 12:44:24 PM
It's not that I have a problem with what they are (well what we are told they are) doing right now. Data mining theoretically anonymous records for patterns makes a lot of sense and I don't think really violates a right in the sense that they are looking a lot of non-named/specific data.

What worries me is this is just one small hop to something that could violate our rights, such as using enhanced mining on records that are predominantly used by Muslims, or those of a political party, or any other group. The possibilities just get more Orwellian from there. I am more okay with Obama doing this than Bush because I believe he has more credibility on the issues of civil rights and individual liberties. I am still not okay with something like this going on without a clear, robust, and highly visible oversight program governing and limiting its scope. One that the common citizen can participate in to a reassuring degree and understand. I feel like when these new powers are granted, no one ever writes in the oversight.
 
2013-06-07 12:44:32 PM

LessO2: LL316: Call me a cockeyed optimist if you will, but I'd think this is something the right and the left could actually agree is bad...right?

The president just made comments defending it, Dianne Feinstein was out defending it last night, and the Republicans created this.

Not sure how any politician see this as "bad."

Once the government gets power, it very rarely lets go.


Oh, I'm sorry...I should have been more clear.  I meant actual humans, not politicians.
 
2013-06-07 12:45:47 PM

We told you that giving GWB these powers would come back to haunt you when a Dem President takes office.
Now you can reap the whirlwind.

theboxset.com

REAP IT
 
2013-06-07 12:46:05 PM

Maud Dib: *favorites shifty as "butthurt".*


farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-06-07 12:49:14 PM

This About That: "Uproar"? "Disclosure"? Is there any thinking American alive today who didn't know our government is routinely and efficiently spying on us every day?


QFT, baby, QFT.
 
2013-06-07 12:49:33 PM

LL316: Call me a cockeyed optimist if you will, but I'd think this is something the right and the left could actually agree is bad...right?


Sure sure,,,I'll just sit back and hold my breath while the House and Senate pass bills to repeal the Patriot Act provisions that allowed this to happen. I mean, the House has only voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 37 times, I'm sure they could pass up the next round of trying to vote down the ACA and vote to repeal the Patriot Act instead.
 
2013-06-07 12:54:03 PM
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-07 12:54:39 PM
I would be interested to know how successful the NSA really is. It's pretty well known that there have been many a bad situation averted over the years, but what is their true success rate outside of what is reported in the media.
 
2013-06-07 12:56:50 PM
At the end of the press conference, he also added "Damn you, Dan Brown!"
 
2013-06-07 12:57:28 PM
I knew that.

And Congress and the White House don't care. In fact, the Canadian Parliament and Prime Minister said it was OK, so they don't care either.

I just hope the public never loses the ability to read all of their mail.
 
2013-06-07 12:57:44 PM
I could tell you that even if the NSA hired a million people tomorrow
they would take ages to go through one day of information that MAY have been going to our gub'mint
But the american idiot keeps voting for the people who support these little spy things
so obviously they want it, they love it, they agree wholeheartedly
and who am I to step on the will of the voting public?
I'm sure they'll remember this the next election when the media tells them who to vote for
good times
 
2013-06-07 12:59:51 PM
Ugh... they were talking about this on Diane Rehm this AM.  The topic of contention was the fact that most of this data collected were things that millions of people willingly hand over to Facebook, Google, or your grocery store on a daily basis.
 
2013-06-07 01:02:37 PM

take_flight: I would be interested to know how successful the NSA really is. It's pretty well known that there have been many a bad situation averted over the years, but what is their true success rate outside of what is reported in the media.


There have been plenty of "bad situations" manufactured and "averted" by the FBI but I don't remember any involving the NSA.
 
2013-06-07 01:06:52 PM

generallyso: take_flight: I would be interested to know how successful the NSA really is. It's pretty well known that there have been many a bad situation averted over the years, but what is their true success rate outside of what is reported in the media.

There have been plenty of "bad situations" manufactured and "averted" by the FBI but I don't remember any involving the NSA.


Why must people suggest that I type a book on a Friday to get my point across. I thought my shortened question would have been sufficient.
 
2013-06-07 01:09:29 PM
Man, it's almost like the civil liberties obsessed liberals were right almost a decade ago. But that can't be true, since liberals, by definition, are wrong.
 
2013-06-07 01:10:13 PM

Maud Dib: We told you that giving GWB these powers would come back to haunt you when a Dem President takes office.
Now you can reap the whirlwind.



We were against the idea of this several years ago but now that we know it's continuing, we don't care and it can continue because there's no way it well ever come back to haunt us like we warned you it would.

Sounds totally reasonable, logcial and farsighted.
 
2013-06-07 01:10:37 PM

This About That: "Uproar"? "Disclosure"? Is there any thinking American alive today who didn't know our government is routinely and efficiently spying on us every day?


Pretty much anyone with an IQ above room temperature is rightfully p*ssed off.

But serious question here: what actual, concrete steps can the average American take to show their displeasure besides writing their congressperson or senator? I don't have enough money to buy myself a lobbyist or lawyer, and b*tching & moaning about this subject on Fark or Reddit isn't exactly producing results either...
 
2013-06-07 01:11:31 PM
Legal is anything the government says it is.

Reminds me of early in the space shuttle program. After a launch, it was revealed that some of the heat resistant tiles had fallen off the spacecraft. Pictures were released to the media and public of the shuttle in space. The government then admitted the photos were taken at a super secret facility located in South Africa that is able to take high resolution photographs of space vehicles in orbit.
 
2013-06-07 01:13:26 PM

StandsWithAFist: This About That: "Uproar"? "Disclosure"? Is there any thinking American alive today who didn't know our government is routinely and efficiently spying on us every day?

Pretty much anyone with an IQ above room temperature is rightfully p*ssed off.

But serious question here: what actual, concrete steps can the average American take to show their displeasure besides writing their congressperson or senator? I don't have enough money to buy myself a lobbyist or lawyer, and b*tching & moaning about this subject on Fark or Reddit isn't exactly producing results either...



Personally I think volunteering time with an organization that does have those resources is worthwhile.
 
2013-06-07 01:13:53 PM
Wasn't thinking this was happening all along considered conspiracy theory? Echelon anyone?
 
2013-06-07 01:18:20 PM

James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.


Why should I want them to do that if they shouldn't have been classifying something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place?
 
2013-06-07 01:19:11 PM
I thought this was basically common knowledge, since the PATRIOT Act.  Weren't NSA officials already installing their own hardware in big  telco/internet  routing centers back in the mid 2000's?

The real surprise, for me anyway, is that they were actually getting court orders for it.  Seems like more of a formality.
 
2013-06-07 01:22:36 PM
Any international Farkers have any suggestion for an overseas replacement for Gmail?
 
2013-06-07 01:24:04 PM

Nem Wan: James!: shifty lookin bleeder: "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use"

Too bad he didn't believe this a few days ago. No he's going to have to prosecute the whistleblower(s) that did.

Yeah, they tend to do that when you leak classified information.

Why should I want them to do that if they shouldn't have been classifying something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place?


Why you want to should do what you want others to want not to do things?
 
2013-06-07 01:33:51 PM
Subby, you're a day early. Tomorrow is Caterday so keep you cat in a bag.
 
2013-06-07 01:34:32 PM
We gave this power to the government.  WE did this.  This was 100% percent legal.  How about this.  How about if Obama didn't do this and a bomb went off killing people or taking down planes, do you think the finger pointing would EVER stop?  NO!  Obama used every legal means to try to get the bad guys BECAUSE WE ASKED HIM TO.  If there were some kind of attack, we'd expect some kind of Jack Bower/CSI thing to track down the people involved and if we didn't get it THERE WOULD BE HELL TO PAY!

Now I don't like this as much or even more than the next person.  HOWEVER, if this is such a scandal, change the law.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report