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.

(The Atlantic Wire)   No, actually, the NSA did NOT say they've been listening to U.S. phone calls without a warrant. But why let facts get in the way of a good outrage?   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 399
    More: Followup, Jerrold Nadler, NSA, phone calls, FISA Court, national security letter, warrants  
•       •       •

8415 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2013 at 10:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-16 07:52:34 PM  
 
2013-06-16 07:54:51 PM  
They're (the NSA) still doing an IV drip of news so it doesn't seem so bad when the crap starts sticking to the fan blades.
 
2013-06-16 08:03:53 PM  

fusillade762: I guess I'll just post this again.

PRISM Isn't Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. "Scandal"


Because U.S. agencies always are lawful and truthful. As someone who helped build some of the infrastructure I wouldn't trust the GS-15s there as far as I could throw their Herman Miller office chairs.
 
2013-06-16 08:04:09 PM  
I'm honestly having a hard time caring. If pictures of the switching rooms at AT&T, etc. got leaked and nothing got done, I really doubt this would change things either.
 
2013-06-16 08:10:00 PM  

2wolves: Because U.S. agencies always are lawful and truthful. As someone who helped build some of the infrastructure I wouldn't trust the GS-15s there as far as I could throw their Herman Miller office chairs.


I had this argument with someone else the other day, the capability for spying on you exists, there's no changing that, if you don't trust the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches when they all say that the government is not spying on you, what on Earth can they possibly do to satisfy your concerns?
 
2013-06-16 08:32:35 PM  

nmrsnr: 2wolves: Because U.S. agencies always are lawful and truthful. As someone who helped build some of the infrastructure I wouldn't trust the GS-15s there as far as I could throw their Herman Miller office chairs.

I had this argument with someone else the other day, the capability for spying on you exists, there's no changing that, if you don't trust the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches when they all say that the government is not spying on you, what on Earth can they possibly do to satisfy your concerns?


Lie back and think of Engl- well, America? How about not giving any government agency such broad legal authority?
 
2013-06-16 08:33:40 PM  
The NSA will not sleep with you, subby.
 
2013-06-16 08:35:10 PM  
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
ozwars.webs.com
 
2013-06-16 08:44:19 PM  
It's taken how long for the American public to pay attention to this?  We were talking about this in 2005 in Con Law and FISA has been around for decades.  This isn't a scandal.  It's just derp-filled Americans learning about shiat the rest of us have known about for years.  Welcome to the party, folks.
 
2013-06-16 08:52:10 PM  

nmrsnr: 2wolves: Because U.S. agencies always are lawful and truthful. As someone who helped build some of the infrastructure I wouldn't trust the GS-15s there as far as I could throw their Herman Miller office chairs.

I had this argument with someone else the other day, the capability for spying on you exists, there's no changing that, if you don't trust the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches when they all say that the government is not spying on you, what on Earth can they possibly do to satisfy your concerns?


Unravel reality. Agencies of the federal government put a toe or two over the line on a frequent basis; this is where they learned to stamp every damn thing "Classified." The CYA culture will have to be shattered before it gets better.
 
2013-06-16 08:56:25 PM  

Nabb1: Lie back and think of Engl- well, America? How about not giving any government agency such broad legal authority?


That's the whole point. They don't HAVE legal authority to spy on you without a warrant. They are all saying that they can't just spy on you without a warrant. If you don't believe that, what CAN they say that you'll believe?
 
2013-06-16 08:57:07 PM  

EmmaLou: It's taken how long for the American public to pay attention to this?  We were talking about this in 2005 in Con Law and FISA has been around for decades.  This isn't a scandal.  It's just derp-filled Americans learning about shiat the rest of us have known about for years.  Welcome to the party, folks.


We have always been at war with Eurasia.
 
2013-06-16 09:01:48 PM  

nmrsnr: Nabb1: Lie back and think of Engl- well, America? How about not giving any government agency such broad legal authority?

That's the whole point. They don't HAVE legal authority to spy on you without a warrant. They are all saying that they can't just spy on you without a warrant. If you don't believe that, what CAN they say that you'll believe?


The FISA warrants are a rubber stamp. And I do have a problem with the surveillance they've been doing without a warrant.
 
2013-06-16 09:04:07 PM  

2wolves: Agencies of the federal government put a toe or two over the line on a frequent basis; this is where they learned to stamp every damn thing "Classified."


This is the point of oversight. The Judicial looks over the requests before signing a warrant, and the Legislative reviews the program to see if it is being utilized properly. I'm not naive enough to think that this won't ever be abused, government does bad things from time to time, but as long as the abuse is illegal, and each branch of government has a check on the other, there's not much more I as a citizen can ask. To believe that the government won't ever gain the capability to spy on you (or, better yet, disable it once they've put it in place) is even more naive than thinking that oversight is enough to ensure no one will ever use the capability badly.
 
2013-06-16 09:11:13 PM  

Nabb1: The FISA warrants are a rubber stamp. And I do have a problem with the surveillance they've been doing without a warrant.


The question is, are they a rubber stamp because they never say no, no matter how unwarranted (no pun intended) the request may be, or because by the time they get around to asking FISA they already have all their ducks in a row because of internal policy? I'd like a little more oversight into that, since no one can answer that question.

As for the non-warrant surveillance, that's been the rule of law for about 30 years, so feel free to lobby for more legal restrictions, but being outraged as if it is something new is kind of silly.
 
2013-06-16 09:19:14 PM  

nmrsnr: Nabb1: The FISA warrants are a rubber stamp. And I do have a problem with the surveillance they've been doing without a warrant.

The question is, are they a rubber stamp because they never say no, no matter how unwarranted (no pun intended) the request may be, or because by the time they get around to asking FISA they already have all their ducks in a row because of internal policy? I'd like a little more oversight into that, since no one can answer that question.

As for the non-warrant surveillance, that's been the rule of law for about 30 years, so feel free to lobby for more legal restrictions, but being outraged as if it is something new is kind of silly.


When historically .03% of thousands of warrants requested were rejected as reported in the Mother Jones article that was green lit the other day, then I am inclined to go with "rubber stamp." That's little more than a speed bump.
 
2013-06-16 09:27:59 PM  

nmrsnr: 2wolves: Agencies of the federal government put a toe or two over the line on a frequent basis; this is where they learned to stamp every damn thing "Classified."

This is the point of oversight. The Judicial looks over the requests before signing a warrant, and the Legislative reviews the program to see if it is being utilized properly. I'm not naive enough to think that this won't ever be abused, government does bad things from time to time, but as long as the abuse is illegal, and each branch of government has a check on the other, there's not much more I as a citizen can ask. To believe that the government won't ever gain the capability to spy on you (or, better yet, disable it once they've put it in place) is even more naive than thinking that oversight is enough to ensure no one will ever use the capability badly.


That was a very round about way of saying that I'm correct.
 
2013-06-16 09:36:10 PM  

Nabb1: When historically .03% of thousands of warrants requested were rejected as reported in the Mother Jones article that was green lit the other day, then I am inclined to go with "rubber stamp." That's little more than a speed bump.


When the FDA randomly samples livestock for the presence of mad cow disease and finds that less than 0.03% have it, are they just rubber-stamping their approval? Or do farmers actually try very hard not to have horribly diseased meat? Either one is possible, without more data it isn't possible to come to an informed conclusion.

2wolves: That was a very round about way of saying that I'm correct.


So you're not upset about the governments current system of laws an oversight? Because I was under the impression you were. I'm saying nothing will ever stop the government from ever doing bad things with its power, the same as nothing will ever stop a bad cop from planting evidence, but on the whole, the system is set up right.
 
2013-06-16 09:36:19 PM  
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-06-16 10:16:21 PM  

Nabb1: EmmaLou: It's taken how long for the American public to pay attention to this?  We were talking about this in 2005 in Con Law and FISA has been around for decades.  This isn't a scandal.  It's just derp-filled Americans learning about shiat the rest of us have known about for years.  Welcome to the party, folks.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.


I didn't say it was a good thing.  It's been BS the whole time.  The right wing apparently didn't seem to know (or care) until last week.  And in your next post, that's right.  FISA courts are basically a rubber stamp for the government, just a technicality to pass that whole pesky needing a warrant thing.  Again, this isn't new.

I don't know what else there is to say.  Apparently some of us have known about this for years and have been voicing our concerns all that time, while others just thought we were crazy.
 
2013-06-16 10:25:21 PM  

EmmaLou: Nabb1: EmmaLou: It's taken how long for the American public to pay attention to this?  We were talking about this in 2005 in Con Law and FISA has been around for decades.  This isn't a scandal.  It's just derp-filled Americans learning about shiat the rest of us have known about for years.  Welcome to the party, folks.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

I didn't say it was a good thing.  It's been BS the whole time.  The right wing apparently didn't seem to know (or care) until last week.  And in your next post, that's right.  FISA courts are basically a rubber stamp for the government, just a technicality to pass that whole pesky needing a warrant thing.  Again, this isn't new.

I don't know what else there is to say.  Apparently some of us have known about this for years and have been voicing our concerns all that time, while others just thought we were crazy.


Yes, I have been opposed to this all along but unlike some people, I am glad it's starting to get more attention. You're not?
 
2013-06-16 10:30:33 PM  
politikasm.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-16 10:33:58 PM  
The IRS also said it was just a couple low level agents too.
Cute how the left is now so trusting of the IRS and the NSA.
 
2013-06-16 10:34:42 PM  

cretinbob: [politikasm.files.wordpress.com image 400x267]


... is that real, and what the fark does that even mean?
 
2013-06-16 10:35:16 PM  
Well, this is fun! It's like hide-and-go-fark-yourself. But less fun.
 
2013-06-16 10:36:16 PM  
Okay, lemme fetch my beer and I'm ready for this thread.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-16 10:39:52 PM  

Nabb1: nmrsnr: Nabb1: The FISA warrants are a rubber stamp. And I do have a problem with the surveillance they've been doing without a warrant.

The question is, are they a rubber stamp because they never say no, no matter how unwarranted (no pun intended) the request may be, or because by the time they get around to asking FISA they already have all their ducks in a row because of internal policy? I'd like a little more oversight into that, since no one can answer that question.

As for the non-warrant surveillance, that's been the rule of law for about 30 years, so feel free to lobby for more legal restrictions, but being outraged as if it is something new is kind of silly.

When historically .03% of thousands of warrants requested were rejected as reported in the Mother Jones article that was green lit the other day, then I am inclined to go with "rubber stamp." That's little more than a speed bump.


The answer lies in what their standard is for approval - and that standard they refuse to make public.

A warrant may be required, but there is already evidence that they have listened to calls without warrant.  One must ask what the huge data warehouse is going to be used for?  If the NSA has all the digitized calls and emails, do you expect all to believe that the ALWAYS get a warrant before logging onto that server?  Do they enter a warrant number, or require a judge to enter the password to access that data?  I think not, and I think they access it much more frequently than even with the easy to get warrant
 
2013-06-16 10:39:55 PM  

Stone Meadow: Okay, lemme fetch my beer and I'm ready for this thread.


Heh heh heh
 
2013-06-16 10:40:50 PM  
I'd like to believe that but, frankly, I think that the preponderance of the entire federal government is staffed by people who are lower than whale sh*t and would lie about ANYTHING, just to see if the lie was believed.  So, uh, yeah, that's great.
 
2013-06-16 10:41:59 PM  

nmrsnr: 2wolves: Agencies of the federal government put a toe or two over the line on a frequent basis; this is where they learned to stamp every damn thing "Classified."

This is the point of oversight. The Judicial looks over the requests before signing a warrant, and the Legislative reviews the program to see if it is being utilized properly. I'm not naive enough to think that this won't ever be abused, government does bad things from time to time, but as long as the abuse is illegal, and each branch of government has a check on the other, there's not much more I as a citizen can ask. To believe that the government won't ever gain the capability to spy on you (or, better yet, disable it once they've put it in place) is even more naive than thinking that oversight is enough to ensure no one will ever use the capability badly.


Yeah Congress is really demonstrating their outstanding oversight by pretending it's the first they've heard of it. "NSA did that? I AM SHOCKED."  Boundless incompetence: the new re-election strategy.
 
2013-06-16 10:42:06 PM  
Someone should go back in time and ask Franklin if he thought it would be okay for the government to make a record of every letter that passed through his post office.
 
2013-06-16 10:42:43 PM  
resource.mmgn.com
 
2013-06-16 10:45:25 PM  
They've always done this spying.  It just took decades for the technology to catch up with what they want to do and gives them an excuse to look at "suspicious" transmissions.  Before they had to actually tap into the line and listen.  Now they can record it digitally, get a warrant and then listen to it.  I'm actually more scared of what the mega corporations are sharing with the government than the actual wire tapping.
 
2013-06-16 10:46:21 PM  
I guess I'm a "boot licker", but I didn't want to judge what the NSA did as "illegal" until all the facts were in. And I'm not sure we have all the facts even now.

Remember what happened last time people jumped all over a "scandal" before having all the facts?

thepoliticalcarnival.net

Glad we learned from our mistakes!
 
2013-06-16 10:46:32 PM  

Bloody William: cretinbob: [politikasm.files.wordpress.com image 400x267]

... is that real, and what the fark does that even mean?


I think they want Saddam Hussein to stop playing country music to the US and go back to the brothel owner from Defiance.
 
2013-06-16 10:47:45 PM  
The problem I have with this is the METADATA collection on innocent citizens. Just having data on who you called and from what location is too much spying to be comfortable with and tells the goverment a lot about you.
 
2013-06-16 10:49:11 PM  

Stone Meadow: Okay, lemme fetch my beer and I'm ready for this thread.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]


The term feedbag comes to mind.

/that's a lot of popcorn
 
2013-06-16 10:49:34 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The IRS also said it was just a couple low level agents too.
Cute how the left is now so trusting of the IRS and the NSA.


Ms Palin still will not boff you.
 
2013-06-16 10:49:43 PM  
The point isn't the NSA listening in on phonecons. The point is them using all the metadata they gathered to develop algorithms/pattern recognition techniques that can detect people organizing/networking to accomplish some goal or cooperative effort. Great for detecting terrorist conspiracies, also good for detecting legitimate political organizing activities. A power that  the government can use to destroy people using communications systems for lawful political activities. Left or right. That is the outrage.
 
2013-06-16 10:50:52 PM  
"The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress.  Members have been briefed on the implementation of Section 702, that it targets foreigners located overseas for a valid foreign intelligence purpose, and that it cannot be used to target Americans anywhere in the world."

... and of course "legal authorization" means whatever the NSA says it means and nobody can challenge it in court because it's a secret program and nobody has standing to sue in court until there's evidence that they've been spied on directly that's gone public.

/Smoke
//Mirrors
///Hey, look at this hand and don't pay any attention to what I'm doing with the other hand
 
2013-06-16 10:51:11 PM  

fusillade762: I guess I'll just post this again.

PRISM Isn't Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. "Scandal"


That article bases it's entire viewpoint from the foundation that a warrant is required to acquire data. A warrant issued on FIFTY-ONE PERCENT certainty that the target isn't a US citizen.

"Oh, he used his debt card overseas last month. He must be from France."


//...and subby, The Atlantic is a editorial publication now. Can we stop using it as "proof" of anything.
 
2013-06-16 10:51:19 PM  
Posted this in response to the same claim on facebook...

The NSA Powerpoint listed the following items that the analyst had access to: Email, Chat (Video, voice), Photos, stored data, voip (most phone calls are carried over viop today including traditional phone company landlines), file transfers, Video conferencing, notification of activity including logins, Social Networking details, and special requests.

This is more than "meta data" which the NSA has claimed to be all they are siphoning up.

Again they are sucking up everything, then going back and unlocking it if they decide you are a target of interest.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."

Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.

"I don't think so," Mueller replied.

"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."

Go watch it yourself

Nadler starts at roughly 1 hour 10 minutes in. Your pundits interpretation is totally incorrect

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/full/fullcomm_0613201 3. wvx
 
2013-06-16 10:51:58 PM  
Where is your tinfoil hat now?

I was really hoping America would take up arms agaist this outrage. They are totally wiretapping without warrant and you know it so why is nobody doing anything about it? Dr Ron Paul would have done something but hey that's just my take on te government documenting your every move digital or otherwise, it's out in the open now and clearly they are trying to get you to think nothing of it, it's here being presented to you on silver platter under neon lightss in front of the entire world and your just going to sit there and take it dry? Damn thats sad, I was really hoping the American middle class would be pissed that the go. Is using your tax money to illegally monitor your every communication
 
2013-06-16 10:52:46 PM  
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu
 
2013-06-16 10:53:15 PM  
Mobile typing sucks
 
2013-06-16 10:53:21 PM  
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is required by statute to approve the FBI and NSA requests for records warrants. There is no supervision because they have no discretion.
 
2013-06-16 10:53:34 PM  

nmrsnr: 2wolves: Because U.S. agencies always are lawful and truthful. As someone who helped build some of the infrastructure I wouldn't trust the GS-15s there as far as I could throw their Herman Miller office chairs.

I had this argument with someone else the other day, the capability for spying on you exists, there's no changing that, if you don't trust the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches when they all say that the government is not spying on you, what on Earth can they possibly do to satisfy your concerns?


They can stop saying "trust us" and release some details. Telling us how the program works doesn't reveal content of any particular investigation. Declassifying completed cases to show us the standards and protections involved does not hurt national security.

When the Executive branch has been caught lying about aspects of this program, when most of the Legislative branch has admitted to being completely ignorant of these programs, and when members with major concerns about them are prohibited from expressing them in public, and when the Judicial branch has been rubber stamping the applications and absolutely nothing, not even the judicial standard is public...

Let's just say that there's a lot more they could do. And that to earn my trust on this, they're going to have to do a whole damned lot more.
 
2013-06-16 10:54:00 PM  

Nabb1: nmrsnr: Nabb1: The FISA warrants are a rubber stamp. And I do have a problem with the surveillance they've been doing without a warrant.

The question is, are they a rubber stamp because they never say no, no matter how unwarranted (no pun intended) the request may be, or because by the time they get around to asking FISA they already have all their ducks in a row because of internal policy? I'd like a little more oversight into that, since no one can answer that question.

As for the non-warrant surveillance, that's been the rule of law for about 30 years, so feel free to lobby for more legal restrictions, but being outraged as if it is something new is kind of silly.

When historically .03% of thousands of warrants requested were rejected as reported in the Mother Jones article that was green lit the other day, then I am inclined to go with "rubber stamp." That's little more than a speed bump.


His point is what sailed over your head.

If an agency knew what would be given a warrant and what would not, they might only apply for on when it would be applied. Were that the case then the oversight is no rubber stamp.
 
2013-06-16 10:54:33 PM  
 Footage of this "classified" briefing apparently isn't as "classified" as the list of Senators who didn't attend yesterday's "classified" briefing.
 
2013-06-16 10:55:27 PM  
So they just do regular, everyday PATRIOT-act style warrantless wiretapping?

/still don't see what why this is a suddenly a scandal
//they've been doing all of this for quite some time
 
Displayed 50 of 399 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report