Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(C|Net)   Obama: "The NSA cannot spy on you without a warrant issued by a FISA court." FISA court warrant: "Yeah, go ahead and spy on everyone"   (news.cnet.com) divider line 86
    More: Obvious, FISA Court, FISA, NSA, President Obama, Americans, FISA Amendments Act, Legal liability, Jameel Jaffer  
•       •       •

1537 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 01:13:46 PM  
so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.
 
2013-06-21 01:56:14 PM  
Technically correct: the best kind of correct
 
2013-06-21 01:57:00 PM  

unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.


Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.
 
2013-06-21 01:58:20 PM  

nmrsnr: Guardian Newspaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's blessing.


stupid typos
 
2013-06-21 02:08:50 PM  
So anyone making out that this is Obama doing the 1984/Big Brother thing is kind of distorting truth, then?
 
2013-06-21 02:09:04 PM  

factoryconnection: Technically correct: the best kind of correct


Also this.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 02:09:31 PM  
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

General warrants are not valid.
 
2013-06-21 02:14:29 PM  
All this HOPE AND CHANGE is making me horny!
 
2013-06-21 02:16:22 PM  
I remember the threads back in 2006 when we asked why bush needed to bypass FISA, when the bar was so damned low.  All that's changed is that there are warrants now.
 
2013-06-21 02:17:32 PM  

Agneska: All this HOPE AND CHANGE is making me horny!


You'd prefer to go back to skipping the warrant entirely, like the Bush Administration?
 
2013-06-21 02:18:20 PM  

nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.


Don't confuse the issues with the facts, you boot-licking fascist.  How DARE you!
 
2013-06-21 02:19:38 PM  

unlikely: So anyone making out that this is Obama doing the 1984/Big Brother thing is kind of distorting truth, then?


That's crazy-talk!  The mob is never wrong, especially when it comes to the government!
 
2013-06-21 02:25:31 PM  
but it's legal! so that makes it okay...derp!
 
2013-06-21 02:27:06 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 02:28:33 PM  
That's not what the article says at all subby.

This whole things is a BS thing no one actually wants to talk about the facts they just want to scream theses strawman paranoid beliefs.

It's too bad because it would be a good conversation to have but nothing will get solved when people are lying again and again about what is actually happening.
 
2013-06-21 02:30:58 PM  

nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.


They were able to record conversations where one of the parties wasn't American, though - which is quite a few. That's violating the spirit of the law but not the letter, in my opinion.
 
2013-06-21 02:32:27 PM  

Churchill2004: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

General warrants are not valid.


IANAL, but it depends on what is and is not particularized. The warrants do specify (to the best of my understanding) phone numbers and E-mail accounts that they want to access. The fact that they ask for permission for thousands of them at a time, and that they don't know who they belong to doesn't necessarily mean that the warrants aren't for particular communications.

"I want to look at E-mails for bad stuff" = general warrant and a no-no.

"I want to look at these E-mails for bad stuff" might be particular enough, since they have at least some specificity, it's the probable cause thing that gets dicey here, since they're not looking for evidence of a specific crime.

Also, given that the targets are not US citizens, or under US jurisdiction, it's unclear how much the fourth amendment protects them.
 
2013-06-21 02:36:21 PM  

Lord Dimwit: They were able to record conversations where one of the parties wasn't American, though - which is quite a few. That's violating the spirit of the law but not the letter, in my opinion.


Yeah, the minimization rules are not exactly what I want them to be, I don't like the "we can hold it for five years" thing either. No, if it's not something you should have heard, destroy it now.
 
2013-06-21 02:40:02 PM  
And we also can't sue because we can't prove we were spied on.

It's a cromulent reading of the Constitution.
 
2013-06-21 02:40:44 PM  

nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.


I think it's more like:

NSA: We're going to store information on everything, by everyone, but we're only going to LOOK at it for foreigners. Otherwise it's going to be in this big computer over here, that we never look in, we promise.
 
2013-06-21 02:41:36 PM  
img.fark.net


img.fark.net

"Decisions, Decisions......"
 
2013-06-21 02:41:45 PM  

nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.


You're telling me Glenn Greenwald is a pants-pissing little liar who thinks a scratch pad and pencil make him an investigative reporter, and that an honest word not tinted with the melange of fear and poutrage he peddled at Salon has never passed his lips or pen?

The hell you say.
 
2013-06-21 02:43:08 PM  

KyngNothing: nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.

I think it's more like:

NSA: We're going to store information on everything, by everyone, but we're only going to LOOK at it for foreigners. Otherwise it's going to be in this big computer over here, that we never look in, we promise.


I work with two guys who worked for the NSA in a research capacity. When all this bruhaha started, they made the comment that as soon as anything in the data being analyzed indicated that an American citizen was involved, they had to immediately shut down whatever it was they were doing and cease logging any more data. I don't know if they had to delete what they already had, though...
 
2013-06-21 02:48:59 PM  
Us:  NSA, tell us what you know about electronic surveilance on Americans.

NSA: Tell us what you already know.

Us:  We know A B C...

NSA:  Well then, that's all we know too.

Us:  *sigh*
 
2013-06-21 02:55:47 PM  
Someone is lying about how the NSA actually gets information and that they have to go through FISA properly. Say it ain't so.
 
2013-06-21 03:03:00 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: The hell you say.


Hey just asking, if you're like this superior being, why do you still lean so conspicuously right politically in these discussions?

I thought you people I means lizards were above that sort of thing.
 
2013-06-21 03:09:13 PM  

nmrsnr: "I want to look at these E-mails for bad stuff" might be particular enough, since they have at least some specificity, it's the probable cause thing that gets dicey here, since they're not looking for evidence of a specific crime


terrorism is the crime they specify.
 
2013-06-21 03:13:22 PM  

Lord Dimwit: KyngNothing: nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

I work with two guys who worked for the NSA in a research capacity. When all this bruhaha started, they made the comment that as soon as anything in the data being analyzed indicated that an American citizen was involved, they had to immediately shut down whatever it was they were doing and cease logging any more data. I don't know if they had to delete what they already had, though...


Most of what I've seen suggests that there is a difference between what is available to analysts, and what is stored on their computers... It sounds like they treat stuff only as "wiretapped" if it's available.
 
2013-06-21 03:16:46 PM  

whidbey: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The hell you say.

Hey just asking, if you're like this superior being, why do you still lean so conspicuously right politically in these discussions?

I thought you people I means lizards were above that sort of thing.


I reject the notion that "liberal" and "leftist" contain within them the terms "anarchist" or "antiauthoritarian." These are post-1960s American New Left conceits. Consider me a throwback to the heydays of popular labor and socialist movements before the left became frightened of authority.
 
2013-06-21 03:18:27 PM  
fta:   A pair of classified government documents ( and ) signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and by the Guardian on Thursday show that NSA analysts are able to listen to Americans' intercepted phone calls without asking a judge for a warrant first.

Why do people have a problem with this?

Holder approved it.

Nothing to see here.
 
2013-06-21 03:21:31 PM  

Lord Dimwit: KyngNothing: nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.

I think it's more like:

NSA: We're going to store information on everything, by everyone, but we're only going to LOOK at it for foreigners. Otherwise it's going to be in this big computer over here, that we never look in, we promise.

I work with two guys who worked for the NSA in a research capacity. When all this bruhaha started, they made the comment that as soon as anything in the data being analyzed indicated that an American citizen was involved, they had to immediately shut down whatever it was they were doing and cease logging any more data. I don't know if they had to delete what they already had, though...


People from the NSA are telling you how they operate?
Sounds like bullshiat to me.

But just in case you aren't lying, ask them if they are required by law to shut it down and if there are any criminal penalties if they don't.
 
2013-06-21 03:22:18 PM  
Well, I don't like it, but it's not the derp we've been herped either. NSA, you better be able to show some real proof that what you're doing saves lives, and not tangentially, directly. Or a strongly worded letter will be on my mind to write for awhile.
 
2013-06-21 03:26:15 PM  
 
2013-06-21 03:26:24 PM  

KyngNothing: Most of what I've seen suggests that there is a difference between what is available to analysts, and what is stored on their computers... It sounds like they treat stuff only as "wiretapped" if it's available.


It's the distinction between capability and permissibility. The government has the capability of listening to anything and everything anyone posts on the Internet or say over the phone, pretty much. That capability isn't going anywhere, the only question is what is the government permitted in doing. Right now they are not permitted to access that information without a warrant, and the argument made by some, which is fairly reasonable, is that they should not be permitted to collect it, which they currently are.
 
2013-06-21 03:27:38 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: whidbey: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The hell you say.

Hey just asking, if you're like this superior being, why do you still lean so conspicuously right politically in these discussions?

I thought you people I means lizards were above that sort of thing.

I reject the notion that "liberal" and "leftist" contain within them the terms "anarchist" or "antiauthoritarian." These are post-1960s American New Left conceits. Consider me a throwback to the heydays of popular labor and socialist movements before the left became frightened of authority.


When was that? during the labor movement there were violent clashes with the police... maybe you're a new type of liberal  who enjoys authoritarianism.
 
2013-06-21 03:31:55 PM  

Headso: Obama's Reptiloid Master: whidbey: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The hell you say.

Hey just asking, if you're like this superior being, why do you still lean so conspicuously right politically in these discussions?

I thought you people I means lizards were above that sort of thing.

I reject the notion that "liberal" and "leftist" contain within them the terms "anarchist" or "antiauthoritarian." These are post-1960s American New Left conceits. Consider me a throwback to the heydays of popular labor and socialist movements before the left became frightened of authority.

When was that? during the labor movement there were violent clashes with the police... maybe you're a new type of liberal  who enjoys authoritarianism.


No, I'm a socialist that enjoys proper scope and limits on authoritarianism.

For instance, police are (generally) good, and police power is necessary for preventing crime and enforcing the law. To that end, we need to make sure our public servants have the necessary tools and powers to accomplish this.

Government regulations, if not outright control, of the economy is also the most sustainable, transparent and fair way of structuring an economy.

Government generally should not concern itself with what parts consenting adults are rubbing together, nor exacerbating class struggle by denying basic rights to people.

But government can and should be free to regulate things that make use of public accommodations and in which people enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as communications carried over public networks like phones, mobile phones, and the Internet.
 
2013-06-21 03:34:01 PM  
I suppose you could say I'm very liberal on social issues, socialist on economic issues, authoritarian on issues relating to police power and law enforcement, and downright radical on class issues.
 
2013-06-21 03:34:43 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Us:  NSA, tell us what you know about electronic surveilance on Americans.

NSA: Tell us what you already know.

Us:  We know A B C...

NSA:  Well then, that's all we know too.

Us:  *sigh*


I think you have to ask it like, "If you told only lies, would you tell us that you're spying on us?" or something like that.  I was never that good at those logic games.
 
2013-06-21 03:36:18 PM  

Ricardo Klement: nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.

Don't confuse the issues with the facts, you boot-licking fascist.  How DARE you!


Where in there does the 'yep our bad, but we are just going to hold on to this and use it as needed for 5 Years or so' fit in?
 
2013-06-21 03:37:07 PM  

Farxist: Lord Dimwit: KyngNothing: nmrsnr: unlikely: so... this isn't warrantless surveillance then?

I'm confused.

Here's the summary:

NSA: We know of a bunch of phone numbers and E-mail addresses that tripped our "fishy looking" algorithm and look like they belong to foreigners, can we have a warrant to check them out?

FISA: Sure, you can investigate those information streams, but only if they turn out to actually be foreigners.

NSA: Hold on, this guy is actually American, I can't use that stuff, and here's the number so that we don't get confused again.

Guardian Newpaper: They're tapping Americans' phones with FISA's belssing.

I think it's more like:

NSA: We're going to store information on everything, by everyone, but we're only going to LOOK at it for foreigners. Otherwise it's going to be in this big computer over here, that we never look in, we promise.

I work with two guys who worked for the NSA in a research capacity. When all this bruhaha started, they made the comment that as soon as anything in the data being analyzed indicated that an American citizen was involved, they had to immediately shut down whatever it was they were doing and cease logging any more data. I don't know if they had to delete what they already had, though...

People from the NSA are telling you how they operate?
Sounds like bullshiat to me.

But just in case you aren't lying, ask them if they are required by law to shut it down and if there are any criminal penalties if they don't.


They didn't say "first I logged into my NSA-secured system, which runs this operating system, using these credentials and approved through these protocols and then proceeded to look at the following documents for the keywords X, Y, and Z."

They said "I remember when I was working for the NSA, we were told that if any of the data we came across indicated a US citizen was involved, we had to stop looking."

That was about the extent of the comments.

As for lying, that's kinda a harsh accusation to just throw out there; I take umbrage.
 
2013-06-21 03:41:18 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: I suppose you could say I'm very liberal on social issues, socialist on economic issues, authoritarian on issues relating to police power and law enforcement, and downright radical on class issues.


OK. Sounds like I misread the fnords in your posts. Will continue to monitor.
 
2013-06-21 03:43:02 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: No, I'm a socialist that enjoys proper scope and limits on authoritarianism.

For instance, police are (generally) good, and police power is necessary for preventing crime and enforcing the law. To that end, we need to make sure our public servants have the necessary tools and powers to accomplish this.

Government regulations, if not outright control, of the economy is also the most sustainable, transparent and fair way of structuring an economy.

Government generally should not concern itself with what parts consenting adults are rubbing together, nor exacerbating class struggle by denying basic rights to people.

But government can and should be free to regulate things that make use of public accommodations and in which people enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as communications carried over public networks like phones, mobile phones, and the Internet.


Clearly, you're not a Marxist Socialist with that line of thinking.
 
2013-06-21 03:43:59 PM  

Churchill2004: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

General warrants are not valid.


Once you have standing, bring it before the court, problem solved.
 
2013-06-21 03:46:16 PM  
FISA is a star chamber that answers to no one. The constitution is a piece of paper. No one in Washington pays any attention to it.
 
2013-06-21 03:48:21 PM  

whidbey: Obama's Reptiloid Master: I suppose you could say I'm very liberal on social issues, socialist on economic issues, authoritarian on issues relating to police power and law enforcement, and downright radical on class issues.

OK. Sounds like I misread the fnords in your posts. Will continue to monitor.


Hah. I get it. Monitor, like monitor lizards. You're gilarious.
 
2013-06-21 03:50:03 PM  

FarkedOver: Obama's Reptiloid Master: No, I'm a socialist that enjoys proper scope and limits on authoritarianism.

For instance, police are (generally) good, and police power is necessary for preventing crime and enforcing the law. To that end, we need to make sure our public servants have the necessary tools and powers to accomplish this.

Government regulations, if not outright control, of the economy is also the most sustainable, transparent and fair way of structuring an economy.

Government generally should not concern itself with what parts consenting adults are rubbing together, nor exacerbating class struggle by denying basic rights to people.

But government can and should be free to regulate things that make use of public accommodations and in which people enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as communications carried over public networks like phones, mobile phones, and the Internet.

Clearly, you're not a Marxist Socialist with that line of thinking.


No. Stalin-esque? Maotastic? Il-lin' like a Lenin? Roguey? I don't know.
 
2013-06-21 03:50:39 PM  
Oh! I've got one: hot to Trotsky.
 
2013-06-21 03:53:47 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: monitor lizards


They're hard to get rid of. Their footprints burn into the screen, too.
 
2013-06-21 03:57:17 PM  

whidbey: Obama's Reptiloid Master: monitor lizards

They're hard to get rid of. Their footprints burn into the screen, too.


I'll bring it up at the next meeting.
 
2013-06-21 04:30:28 PM  
It's still unethical for a government to spy on it's citizens en masse, even if there is a court that will write a warrant for it to do so.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report