View Full Version : The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional
Team Sergeant
07-13-2013, 12:36
The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional
Congress or the courts should put a stop to these unreasonable data seizures.
By RANDY E. BARNETT
Due largely to unauthorized leaks, we now know that the National Security Agency has seized from private companies voluminous data on the phone and Internet usage of all U.S. citizens. We've also learned that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the constitutionality of these seizures in secret proceedings in which only the government appears, and in opinions kept secret even from the private companies from whom the data are seized.
If this weren't disturbing enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, is compiling a massive database of citizens' personal information—including monthly credit-card, mortgage, car and other payments—ostensibly to protect consumers from abuses by financial institutions.
All of this dangerously violates the most fundamental principles of our republican form of government. The Fourth Amendment has two parts: First, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Second, that "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."
By banning unreasonable "seizures" of a person's "papers," the Fourth Amendment clearly protects what we today call "informational privacy." Rather than seizing the private papers of individual citizens, the NSA and CFPB programs instead seize the records of the private communications companies with which citizens do business under contractual "terms of service." These contracts do not authorize data-sharing with the government. Indeed, these private companies have insisted that they be compelled by statute and warrant to produce their records so as not to be accused of breaching their contracts and willingly betraying their customers' trust.
As other legal scholars, most notably Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, have pointed out, when the Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, government agents were liable for damages in civil tort actions for trespass. The Seventh Amendment preserved the right to have a jury composed of ordinary citizens pass upon the "reasonableness" of any searches or seizures. Because judges were not trusted to jealously guard the liberties of the people, the Fourth Amendment restricted the issuance of warrants to the heightened requirements of "probable cause" and specificity.
Over time, as law-enforcement agents were granted qualified immunity from civil suits, it fell mainly to judges to assess the "reasonableness" of a government search or seizure during a criminal prosecution, thereby undermining the original republican scheme of holding law enforcement accountable to citizen juries.
True, judges have long been approving search warrants by relying on ex parte affidavits from law enforcement. With the NSA's surveillance program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has apparently secretly approved the blanket seizure of data on every American so this "metadata" can later provide the probable cause for a particular search. Such indiscriminate data seizures are the epitome of "unreasonable," akin to the "general warrants" issued by the Crown to authorize searches of Colonial Americans.
Still worse, the way these programs have been approved violates the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that no one may be deprived of property "without due process of law." Secret judicial proceedings adjudicating the rights of private parties, without any ability to participate or even read the legal opinions of the judges, is the antithesis of the due process of law.
In a republican government based on popular sovereignty, the people are the principals or masters and those in government are merely their agents or servants. For the people to control their servants, however, they must know what their servants are doing.
The secrecy of these programs makes it impossible to hold elected officials and appointed bureaucrats accountable. Relying solely on internal governmental checks violates the fundamental constitutional principle that the sovereign people must be the ultimate external judge of their servants' conduct in office. Yet such judgment and control is impossible without the information that such secret programs conceal. Had it not been for recent leaks, the American public would have no idea of the existence of these programs, and we still cannot be certain of their scope.
Even if these blanket data-seizure programs are perfectly proper now, the technical capability they create makes it far easier for government to violate the rights of the people in the future. Consider why gun rights advocates so vociferously oppose gun registration. By providing the government with information about the location of private arms, gun registries make it feasible for gun confiscation to take place in the future when the political and legal climate may have shifted. The only effective way to prevent the confiscation of firearms tomorrow is to deprive authorities of the means to do so today.
Like gun registries, these NSA and CFPB databanks make it feasible for government workers to peruse the private contents of our electronic communication and financial transactions without our knowledge or consent. All it takes is the will, combined with the right political climate.
Congress or the courts must put a stop to these unreasonable blanket seizures of data and end the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to secretly adjudicate the constitutionality of surveillance programs. Both practices constitute a present danger to popular sovereignty and the rights retained by the people.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton University, 2005).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578593591276402574.html
Team Sergeant
07-13-2013, 12:40
So if I read this correctly the government is in fact trashing our rights granted by the Constitution. And these gentleman are not tin-foil hat types......
It's time to take back those rights. Snowden may be onto something. History will be his judge.
(Let me know where the ORP is and I'll be headed that way shortly...)
Those in congress that would be required to do something about it WILL NOT do anything about it because they are all culpable, and to buck the system is to forfeit their access to legal corruption.
No more legal insider trading
No more free gifts
No more free 1000 dollar a plate fundraiser dinners
No more jet setting
No more body guards
No more entourage full of ass kissing sycophants
...nothing to see here. Move along.
So if I read this correctly the government is in fact trashing our rights granted by the Constitution. And these gentleman are not tin-foil hat types......
It's time to take back those rights. Snowden may be onto something. History will be his judge.
(Let me know where the ORP is and I'll be headed that way shortly...)
While I have mixed emotions about Snowden and his activities, I am kind of glad he did what he did. It brought to light to many Americans that had no clue the NSA was violating the citizens rights against illegal search and seizures.
If Snowden is sincere in what he did (even believing he is extremely narcissistic), if he brought this info up through the proper chain of command, it would have been swept under the rug.
I remember reading the following article when all of this was hitting the fan and thought it was pretty enlightening.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
The_Mentalist
07-14-2013, 06:00
So if I read this correctly the government is in fact trashing our rights granted by the Constitution.
I am sorry, but have to disagree with this. The Constitution gives us nothing. The Constitution protects what God (nature for the atheists) has given us. Anything given by the government can be taken away by the government without legal or moral consequences. Our rights to privacy are as inalienable as our rights to our own faith and self defense.
As for Snowden, I too am somewhat torn. What he did was right, but how he did it was not. I would have preferred for him to release it to U.S. media from within the U.S. not going to a communist nation.
No more legal insider trading
No more free gifts
No more free 1000 dollar a plate fundraiser dinners
No more jet setting
No more body guards
There it is.
If only there were a national group of officials, elected by the people in a representative democracy, that could put a stop to these issues...
The_Mentalist
07-14-2013, 06:30
There it is.
If only there were a national group of officials, elected by the people in a representative democracy, that could put a stop to these issues...
If only there were enough people in the constitutional republic that believed in the constitution and not in what they could steal from others through the use of corrupt representatives then your statement could possibly happen.
I had a computer client that lived in a poor Colorado mountain town. c. 1990. He stylized himself as Ethan Allen and named his kids after War of Independence heroes. He was forever complaining about government surveillance. Like my other poor mountain town computer client I call 'Black Helicopter' guy, I thought just maybe the government should be keeping and eye on these guys. With the deterioration of inpatient mental health facilities and all...
Anyways, I tell 'Ethan' that I've worked for and with the government and found them barely able to adequately do any job let alone conduct surveillance of the entire population in minute detail. He responds with "That's because they are spending all their time doing the surveillance and not what they're suppose to be doing".
By golly, he could be right. :munchin
If only there were enough people in the constitutional republic that believed in the constitution and not in what they could steal from others through the use of corrupt representatives then your statement could possibly happen.
The issues I quoted from Billy transcend political parties and voting blocks. It's the same reason we have those super effective fraud waste and abuse regulations in the military.
Inalienable is an empty word.
...so is free
...so is equal
...so is justice
As Mao Zedong said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
Constitutional freedoms are based on a document signed by politicians and they are the ones that control the guns.
We are a nation full of microwave ovens. We want everything now. Nobody wants to wait the 2 minutes it takes for a pop-tart to warm up in a toaster. We throw that mother fucker in the micro wave and stare ate it for 30 seconds...
...and then we throw a tirade when the filling is too fucking hot.
Thats what we have with the NSA. Everyone wanted to feel safe from the boogeyman and they didn't care how. Now uncle sam is in our business and everyone wonders why.
Republicans were fine when the Bush administration signed the Patriot Act. Democrats acted as though the government had rolled up the constitution and started using it to deflower virgins.
The constitution will always be the document that the political party NOT in power SWEARS is being abused by the political party that IS in power.
More often than not the party IN power is going to apply presidential origami to that poor little document for POLITICAL expediency.
Meet the new boss...
...same as the old boss.
Surgicalcric
07-14-2013, 20:06
"...The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know..." John F Kennedy on April 27, 1961
If only we still believed such...
Read this article this morning. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
The NSA’s Massive Data Center Is Coming Online Ahead Of Schedule — And It’s More Powerful Than You Thought. :mad:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/the-nsas-massive-data-center-is-coming-online-ahead-of-sched
They continue to downplay, or are silent on, the significance of metadata, the possibilities of the use of this data as technology progresses, the fact that the use of this data violates the NSA charter of spying on US citizens, as well as illegal search and seizure issues.
"A top-secret court has renewed the authority of U.S. national security officials to collect telephone data as part of an anti-terror surveillance program that was exposed by intelligence leaker Edward Snowden"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/nsa-surveillance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Mao famously said that 'political power grows from the barrel of a gun'. That's so 1942.
I say today that 'political power grows from pervasive control of peoples information'.
The new gun. :munchin
Be patient, people. I'm sure the Stasi had its little growth pangs, as well.
Mao famously said that 'political power grows from the barrel of a gun'. That's so 1942.
I say today that 'political power grows from pervasive control of peoples information'.
The new gun. :munchin
George Orwell said it best:
"The Media will tell you what they want you to believe."
Bang, bang ......
GratefulCitizen
07-21-2013, 14:07
There is another problem with centralized control of large amounts of digital data.
Purging and fabrication.
How easy is it to "clean" inconvenient data whilst also fabricating new data?
Certainly easier than fabricating a paper birth certificate.
:D
This all leads to a ministry of truth...
The numbers tell the story — in votes and dollars. On Wednesday, the House voted 217 to 205 not to rein in the NSA’s phone-spying dragnet. It turns out that those 217 “no” voters received twice as much campaign financing from the defense and intelligence industry as the 205 “yes” voters.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) voted against the measure. He ranked 15th in defense earnings with a $131,000 take. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) also voted against Amash. Pelosi took in $47,000 from defense firms over the two-year period.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/money-nsa-vote/
Streck-Fu
08-01-2013, 13:55
I wasn't sure which NSA thread to drop this so, here it is....LINK (https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724)
Anti-terrorism Agents visit family based on Google searches....
It was a confluence of magnificent proportions that led six agents from the joint terrorism task force to knock on my door Wednesday morning. Little did we know our seemingly innocent, if curious to a fault, Googling of certain things was creating a perfect storm of terrorism profiling. Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.
Most of it was innocent enough. I had researched pressure cookers. My husband was looking for a backpack. And maybe in another time those two things together would have seemed innocuous, but we are in “these times” now. And in these times, when things like the Boston bombing happen, you spend a lot of time on the internet reading about it and, if you are my exceedingly curious news junkie of a twenty-year-old son, you click a lot of links when you read the myriad of stories. You might just read a CNN piece about how bomb making instructions are readily available on the internet and you will in all probability, if you are that kid, click the link provided.
........
What happened was this: At about 9:00 am, my husband, who happened to be home yesterday, was sitting in the living room with our two dogs when he heard a couple of cars pull up outside. He looked out the window and saw three black SUVs in front of our house; two at the curb in front and one pulled up behind my husband’s Jeep in the driveway, as if to block him from leaving.
Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.
A million things went through my husband’s head. None of which were right. He walked outside and the men greeted him by flashing badges. He could see they all had guns holstered in their waistbands.
“Are you [name redacted]?” one asked while glancing at a clipboard. He affirmed that was indeed him, and was asked if they could come in. Sure, he said.
They asked if they could search the house, though it turned out to be just a cursory search. They walked around the living room, studied the books on the shelf (nope, no bomb making books, no Anarchist Cookbook), looked at all our pictures, glanced into our bedroom, pet our dogs. They asked if they could go in my son’s bedroom but when my husband said my son was sleeping in there, they let it be.
Meanwhile, they were peppering my husband with questions. Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.
...........
45 minutes later, they shook my husband’s hand and left. That’s when he called me and relayed the story. That’s when I felt a sense of creeping dread take over. What else had I looked up? What kind of searches did I do that alone seemed innocent enough but put together could make someone suspicious? Were they judging me because my house was a mess (Oh my god, the joint terrorism task force was in my house and there were dirty dishes in my sink!). Mostly I felt a great sense of anxiety. This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list. Where you have to watch every little thing you do because someone else is watching every little thing you do.
All I know is if I’m going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I’m not doing it online.
I’m scared. And not of the right things.
Full article at the link.....
Smokin Joe
08-02-2013, 13:48
NSA Collects "Word For Word" Domestic Communications, Says Former Analyst
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/whistleblowers_08-01.html (NSA Collects "Word For Word" Domestic Communications)
Transcript
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we pick up on the continuing fallout from the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Last night, we debated the role of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence court, which approves the government's requests to gather intelligence information on Americans.
Tonight, we have a conversation with three former NSA officials, a former inspector general and two NSA veterans who blew the whistle on what they say were abuses and mismanagement at the secret government intelligence agency.
William Binney worked at the NSA for over three decades as a mathematician, where he designed systems for collecting and analyzing large amounts of data. He retired in 2001. And Russell Tice had a two-decade career with the NSA where he focused on collection and analysis. He says he was fired in 2005 after calling on Congress to provide greater protection to whistle-blowers.
He claims the NSA tapped the phone of high-level government officials and the news media 10 years ago.
RUSSELL TICE, former National Security Agency analyst: The United States were, at that time, using satellites to spy on American citizens. At that time, it was news organizations, the State Department, including Colin Powell, and an awful lot of senior military people and industrial types.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, this is the early 2000s.
Watch more of the interviews with the ex-NSA analysts and former inspector general.
Watch more of the interviews with the ex-NSA analysts and former inspector general.
RUSSELL TICE: This was in 2002-2003 time frame. The NSA were targeting individuals. In that case, they were judges like the Supreme Court. I held in my hand Judge Alito's targeting information for his phones and his staff and his family.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Bill Binney, what was your sense of who was being targeted and why they were being targeted? And what was being collected, in other words?
WILLIAM BINNEY, former National Security Agency technical leader: Well, I wasn't aware of specific targeting like Russ was. I just saw the inputs were including hundreds of millions of records of phone calls of U.S. citizens every day. So it was virtually -- there wasn't anybody who wasn't a part of this collection of information.
So, virtually, you could target anybody in this country you wanted.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Both Binney and Tice suspect that today, the NSA is doing more than just collecting metadata on calls made in the U.S. They both point to this CNN interview by former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente days after the Boston Marathon bombing. Clemente was asked if the government had a way to get the recordings of the calls between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his wife.
TIM CLEMENTE, former FBI counterterrorism agent: On the national security side of the house, in the federal government, you know, we have assets. There are lots of assets at our disposal throughout the intelligence community and also not just domestically, but overseas. Those assets allow us to gain information, intelligence on things that we can't use ordinarily in a criminal investigation.
All digital communications are -- there's a way to look at digital communications in the past. And I can't go into detail of how that's done or what's done. But I can tell you that no digital communication is secure.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tice says after he saw this interview on television, he called some former workmates at the NSA.
RUSSELL TICE: Well, two months ago, I contacted some colleagues at NSA. We had a little meeting, and the question came up, was NSA collecting everything now? Because we kind of figured that was the goal all along. And the answer came back. It was, yes, they are collecting everything, contents word for word, everything of every domestic communication in this country.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Both of you know what the government says is that we're collecting this -- we're collecting the number of phone calls that are made, the e-mails, but we're not listening to them.
WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, I don't believe that for a minute. OK?
I mean, that's why they had to build Bluffdale, that facility in Utah with that massive amount of storage that could store all these recordings and all the data being passed along the fiberoptic networks of the world. I mean, you could store 100 years of the world's communications here. That's for content storage. That's not for metadata.
Metadata if you were doing it and putting it into the systems we built, you could do it in a 12-by-20-foot room for the world. That's all the space you need. You don't need 100,000 square feet of space that they have at Bluffdale to do that. You need that kind of storage for content.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what does that say, Russell Tice, about what the government -- you're saying -- your understanding is of what the government does once these conversations take place, is it your understanding they're recorded and kept?
RUSSELL TICE: Yes, digitized and recorded and archived in a facility that is now online. And they're kind of fibbing about that as well, because Bluffdale is online right now.
And that's where the information is going. Now, as far as being able to have an analyst look at all that, that's impossible, of course. And I think, semantically, they're trying to say that their definition of collection is having literally a physical analyst look or listen, which would be disingenuous.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But the government vehemently denies it is recording all telephone calls. Robert Litt is the general counsel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He recently spoke at the Brookings Institution.
ROBERT LITT, NSA general counsel: We do not indiscriminately sweep up and store the contents of the communications of Americans or of the citizenry of any country. We do collect metadata, information about communications, more broadly than we collect the actual content of communications, but that's because it is less intrusive than collecting content and in fact can provide us information that helps us more narrowly focus our collection of content on appropriate foreign intelligence targets.
But it simply is not true that the United States government is listening to everything said by the citizens of any country.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Joel Brenner, who was the NSA's inspector general and then senior legal counsel, says the intelligence agency obeys the law and the directions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.
JOEL BRENNER, former NSA inspector general: It's really important to understand that the NSA hasn't done anything, as I understand it and from all I know, that goes one inch beyond what it's been authorized to do by a court.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, tell us, how extensive is the NSA's collection of data on American citizens, on their phone calls, on their e-mails, on their use of the Internet?
JOEL BRENNER: This the program only involves telephony metadata, not e-mails, not geographic location information.
The idea that NSA is keeping files on Americans, as a general rule, just isn't true. There's no basis for believing that. The idea that NSA is compiling dossiers on people the way J. Edgar Hoover did in the '40s and '50s or the way the East German police did, as some people allege, that's just not true.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we have been talking to a couple of former NSA employees and one of the allegations they make is that it's not just collecting this metadata on telephone conversations; it's recording those conversations and it's storing them and keeping them for possible future use.
JOEL BRENNER: I think you're talking about Mr. Tice and Mr. Binney.
Mr. Binney hasn't been at the agency since 2001. Mr. Tice hasn't been at the agency since 2005. They don't know what's going on inside the agency.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Another allegation we heard from them, from Mr. Tice, is that back as of the time before he left the NSA in the early 2000s, that there was spying going on, on news organizations, on Supreme Court justices, on presidential candidates, then Senator Barack Obama, on military leaders, top generals in the army.
JOEL BRENNER: Mr. Tice made the allegations you have just indicated having to do with the period before 2005, eight years ago. They're just coming out now. I wonder why.
The farther he gets from the period when he could have known what he was talking about, the more fanciful his allegations have become.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Brenner claims that oversight of information gathering has actually improved.
JOEL BRENNER: We have turned intelligence into a regulated industry in a way that none of our allies, even in Europe, have done.
We have all three branches of government now involved in overseeing the activities of the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, and our other intelligence apparatus. This is an enormous achievement.
MAN: Government has gone too far in the name of security, that the Fourth Amendment has been bruised.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Last week, one oversight proposal in Congress aimed at preventing the NSA from collecting date on phone calls was narrowly defeated, but some members are vowing to press for additional restrictions on the investigative agency.
What I'm surprised about is that so many people are surprised that this was going on.
ddoering
08-02-2013, 17:10
Maybe they took it for granted that their Constitutional Rights were inviolate.
I've always assumed Uncle Sam is always listening
ddoering
08-02-2013, 18:20
Does that make it right? A secret court authorizes the secret spying on US citizens for no good reason and no oversight?????
Sounds like the same stuff the Gestapo and Stasi used to do.
Team Sergeant
08-02-2013, 19:28
What I'm surprised about is that so many people are surprised that this was going on.
I am only because of the scope of the "listening" to include "all" Americans. Last I heard we had a right to privacy......
My tin-foil hat has never felt as comfortable as it does nowadays.
Americans have never had privacy. Its always been smoke and mirrors. If it isn't 'the Japs' it's the fascists, if it isn't the fascists, its communists, if it isn't the communists its hippies, if it isn't hippies its al Qaeda if it isn't al Qaeda its some other garden variety terrorist...
...but its always for your own good and even though "Nearly 6-in-10 Want Every Member of Congress Replaced" we look the other way as long as someone assures us that our children are safe.
No one cares, no one is interested, no one even knows what it is they are really mad about.
Just like we say the military is at war while America is at the mall; this NSA business is the same way. Millions of people will act indignant, they will perform the standard rant at the water cooler, they will puff their chest and talk about 'throwing the bums out of office' but at the end of the day, only a small portion of the electorate even knows where to go to cast a ballot.
I for one am enjoying the freak show and I can't wait until I get to start confiscating guns from sheep "for their own safety".
Rest easy folks, the gub-mint loves you and we are here to help!
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah !!!
...just sayin'
bushmaster11
08-05-2013, 12:37
I am ambivalent on this guy Snowden and his actions,
Secrecy is a bedrock of sensitive matters. Especially military. Look at MACVSOG; Project Delta; Omega from Vietnam. They were classified for over 30 years. For 30 years our work remained in the dark. The info was important during hostility, It should have been declassified once there was no overarching, coherent reason existed.
Now Delta Force, SEALs, etc; they are built around secrecy. IMHO that any revealing military info that puts troops at risk should drawn aqnd quartered.
Matters that concern political subjects can and should be revealed. Matters that are classified solely because they are only classified for embarassment, needs to be publicly revealed. Snowden targeted Booz-Allen specifically, because they were a contractor to NSA. He KNEW that it included sensitive MILITARY info. He knew it would place people like US at risk.
Too many things should be outed. Our Constitutution is too precious to be endangered. That is why I am ambivalent.
Just my opinion.
J R
DOL
To me, Snowden is a POS who did something illegal and wrong, and something good just happened to come from his actions. Not because he was altruistic and that was his intent or design, just happenstance that it was a byproduct of his illegal actions.
I think he should be punished if captured, but am glad the info he released regarding the NSA collection of info on the US was brought about.
Badger52
08-05-2013, 13:03
I think he should be punished if captured, but am glad the info he released regarding the NSA collection of info on the US was brought about.Someone carries in a posted mall, thwarts some berserk POS, and is hailed & heralded - and then arrested for having violated a 'no guns' sign posted by the absentee developer's lawyer.
Yep, trackin'.
:rolleyes:
Yes it is, so is the DEA's practice of using said NSA data for their work in conus.
link: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932
Someone carries in a posted mall, thwarts some berserk POS, and is hailed & heralded - and then arrested for having violated a 'no guns' sign posted by the absentee developer's lawyer.
Yep, trackin'.
:rolleyes:
If captured, he should punished as his disclosures went beyond disclosing what the NSA was doing. If that was the only thing he disclosed and he was then silent, I would say give him a reward and a parade. But the punishment should fit the crime, but the embarrassment to the administration would most likely seek to go beyond that. I am ambivalent as to if he is ever captured or not.
Team Sergeant
08-05-2013, 13:28
Yes it is, so is the DEA's practice of using said NSA data for their work in conus.
link: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932
This just gets better and better.........
We need more fusion centers so we can spy on every American!!!!!
Screw the Constitution more secret courts too!
How long before the NSA shares it's data with private corporations, oh they're already doing just that.....:munchin
This just gets better and better.........
We need more fusion centers so we can spy on every American!!!!!
Screw the Constitution more secret courts too!
How long before the NSA shares it's data with private corporations, oh they're already doing just that.....:munchin
They've definitely gotten out of control and it needs to stop.
With fiscal intentions in mind I won't comment further, have enough folks following me around at the moment :D
mark46th
08-05-2013, 16:01
Have to agree with Billy L- This has been going on and will continue. This NSA program has so much valuable information, if it weren't being shared with political donors, I would be surprised.
"It's always about the money, mate" Russell Crowe as Terry Thorne in "Proof of Life"
Is there an AES-level cipher out there which keeps inform ation secret from service providers or data storage services altogether?
Yes but: they'll keep your data forever, get their attention, isn't plug and play, your passphrases need to be long
and nonsensical, and if transmitted have to use RSA too.
If your using Android or other non-self compiled OS expect a keyboard driver update OR if you have JavaScript enabled OR you open PDF's with JavaScript embedded; you'll have a Keylogger installed. The TOR network has also been compromised recently too. If you still really want something that works download Open Source and compile yourself.
I'd suggest gentoo as your os.
So until you vote the Morons out of office that support this bs you're pretty much Sol...the counters are numerous and technical.
Written from a Droid with an unauthorized keylogger installed...a crappy one at that.
vote the Morons out of office that support this bs
I think that is the crux of this entire issue. The problem is "we the people" ABSOLUTELY refuse to vote the morons out of office.
How in the FUCK did Teddy Kennedy stay employed for almost 50 years? There are only a few explanations:
- Teddy Kennedy was an INCREDIBLE senator
- The people of Massachusetts are 3-generation-moron voters
- Nobody cares as long as the check hits the bank
Nancy Pelosi has been inside the beltway for 20 years....
...when does she get voted out of office?
Strom Thurmond?
...for fuck sack, Fred Flinstone voted for that guy and only old age got him out of office
The distinguished democrat from Arizona...
...well, he's a war hero, we CANT vote him out of office
The sad state is, our country is the definition of life imitating art.
Look at the Eddie Murphy movie "The Distinguished Gentleman"
...and a little bit of "Idiocracy"
...and "Wag the Dog"
...and "Primary Colors"
We dont vote politicians out of office Its not in our nature.
2018commo
08-05-2013, 20:04
Yes it is, so is the DEA's practice of using said NSA data for their work in conus.
link: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932
DEA's TTPs are Bitches, Snitches, Cell Phones and Cash, hard to do cell phones without NSA.
DEA's TTPs are Bitches, Snitches, Cell Phones and Cash, hard to do cell phones without NSA.
Not really!!!
CALEA made it mandatory when a court order is provided..... Every provider has to have a solution law enforcement.
Badger52
08-09-2013, 14:44
So if I read this correctly the government is in fact trashing our rights granted by the Constitution. And these gentleman are not tin-foil hat types......
It's time to take back those rights. Snowden may be onto something. History will be his judge.
Play ball or else. (http://boingboing.net/2013/08/08/lavabit-email-service-snowden.html) From the owner of Snowden's email service:
My Fellow Users,
I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.
What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.
This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.
Sincerely,
Ladar Levison
Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC
A similar service shut theirs down too because the 'writing was on the wall' from the lavabit close down.
Guess the Foil Hat is on the other foot...
I could pass along many companies names and state govs that are in (contracted) prism; wouldn't believe some of them. But I won't, don't want anyone getting hurt. It almost appears like a drug for them though.
Upside to all this is that the next time my system crashes, I'll just do an FOIA request to the NSA for all my old data - no need to have to back it up anymore. Finally - my tax dollars at work for something I might be able to use. :D
Richard
Good idea, free data backup :D
Link to article below...
Confessed Liar To Congress, James Clapper, Gets To Set Up The 'Independent' Review Over NSA Surveillance
from the uh,-that's-not-independent dept
Well, this is rather incredible. Remember on Friday how one of President Obama's efforts to get people to trust the government more concerning the NSA's surveillance efforts was to create an "outside" and "independent" board to review it all? Specifically, he said:
Fourth, we're forming a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. We need new thinking for a new era. We now have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in the haystack of global telecommunications. And meanwhile, technology has given governments — including our own — unprecedented capability to monitor communications.
So I am tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities — particularly our surveillance technologies. And they'll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy — particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public. And they will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year, so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy.
Okay. Outside, independent. Sure, that might help. Except, that was Friday. Today is Monday. And, on Monday we learn that "outside" and "independent" actually means setup by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper -- the same guy who has already admitted to lying to Congress about the program, and has received no punishment for doing so. This is independent? From this we're supposed to expect real oversight?!? This is from the letter sent to Clapper:
I believe it is important to take stock of how these technological advances alter the environment in which we conduct our intelligence mission. To this end, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I am directing you to establish a Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies (Review Group).
The Review Group will assess whether, in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust. Within 60 days of its establishment, the Review Group will brief their interim findings to me through the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Review Group will provide a final report and recommendations to me through the DNI no later than December 15, 2013.
In case you didn't catch that, he's asking Clapper to first create and set up this "outside" and "independent" review group... and then to have the group report its findings back to Clapper. The same strong defender of the program who flat out lied to Congress about it. If this was about "restoring the trust" of the American people that the government isn't pulling a fast one over on them, President Obama sure has a funny way of trying to rebuild that trust. This seems a lot more like giving the concerns of the American public a giant middle finger.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130812/13512624147/president-asks-confessed-liar-to-congerss-james-clapper-to-set-up-independent-review-committee-over-nsa-surveillance.shtml
Badger52
08-15-2013, 13:14
...and our need to maintain the public trust.In my estimation, nothing even a clean ombudsman-like effort does, will resolve the trust issue, let alone a coop built by the fox.
This might even be an issue of lesser concern (for many) were it isolated over the course of 2 terms and absent the pile-on of other issues/scandals that remain. These have so eroded general trust in government that ANYthing - even if done right by the right people for the right reasons - triggers the jaundiced eye. To believe that this effort will not draw more mistrust is a massive insult to the American people - then again, many are getting exactly what they've voted for.
Ran across this article this morning. My favorite quote for the article...
So, essentially, the NSA is deeply compromising our privacy so that it can do an extremely shitty job of looking for terrorists. Nice.
Rest of article and a link below.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/hey-nsa-terrorists-dont-use-verizon-or-skype-or-gmail
Sorry, NSA, Terrorists Don't Use Verizon. Or Skype. Or Gmail
The NSA has to collect the metadata from all of our phone calls because terrorists, right? And the spy agency absolutely must intercept Skypes you conduct with folks out-of-state, or else terrorism. It must sift through your iCloud data and Facebook status updates too, because Al Qaeda.
Terrorists are everywhere, they are legion, they are dangerous, and, unfortunately, they don't really do any of the stuff described above.
Even though the still-growing surveillance state that sprung up in the wake of 9/11 was enacted almost entirely to "fight terrorism," reports show that the modes of communication that agencies like the NSA are targeting are scarcely used by terrorists at all.
A recent Bloomberg piece points to a 2012 report on terrorism which found that most serious terrorists steer clear of the most obvious platforms—major cell networks, Google, Skype, Facebook, etc.
Or, as Bloomberg more bluntly puts it, the "infrastructure set up by the National Security Agency ... may only be good for gathering information on the stupidest, lowest-ranking of terrorists. The Prism surveillance program focuses on access to the servers of America’s largest Internet companies, which support such popular services as Skype, Gmail and iCloud. These are not the services that truly dangerous elements typically use."
And why would they? Post-911 warrantless wiretapping practices are well known, NSA-style data collection was well-rumored, and we all knew the Department of Homeland Security was already scanning emails for red-flag keywords. Of course terrorists would take precautions. Bloomberg elaborates:
In a January 2012 report titled “Jihadism on the Web: A Breeding Ground for Jihad in the Modern Age,” the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service drew a convincing picture of an Islamist Web underground centered around “core forums.” These websites are part of the Deep Web, or Undernet, the multitude of online resources not indexed by commonly used search engines.
In 2010, Google estimated that it had indexed just 0.004% of the internet—meaning the vast majority of the web is open for surreptitious message-sending business. Terrorists simply aren't dumb enough to discuss their secret plans over Skype or to email each other confidential information on Gmail.
So, essentially, the NSA is deeply compromising our privacy so that it can do an extremely shitty job of looking for terrorists. Nice.
"Sorry, NSA, Terrorists Don't Use Verizon. Or Skype. Or GMail"
Hence the recent targeting of the 'Silk Road' by any means.
I'm still trying to figure out if they really ever read the founding documents, aren't that bright, or just don't care. Suspect a combination of the later.
In any event, free backups for all until we change the 'leaders' of our country, whom by the way are just figuring out they didn't get it when they recently extended the programs. Kinda like the affordable care act.
Very forward thinking and detailed bunch, LOL!
An inch is a cinch, a yard hard, and a mile a trial. ..
Badger52
08-21-2013, 13:58
So, essentially, the NSA is deeply compromising our privacy so that it can do an extremely shitty job of looking for terrorists. Nice.It would appear Denninger is a bit exercised over that at the Market Ticker. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223759)
:munchin
Badger52
08-22-2013, 08:18
LINK to the AP story. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/22/20131077-secret-court-scolded-nsa-over-surveillance-in-2011-declassified-documents-reveal?lite) (FNC had it semi-buried somewhere too.) The link also has the site where the FISA opinions are posted.
Extract:
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has given up more of its surveillance secrets, acknowledging that it was ordered to stop scooping up thousands of Internet communications from Americans with no connection to terrorism — a practice it says was an unintended consequence when it gathered bundles of Internet traffic connected to terror suspects.
One of the documents that intelligence officials released Wednesday came because a court ordered the National Security Agency to do so. But it's also part of the administration's response to the leaks by analyst-turned-fugitive Edward Snowden, who revealed that the NSA's spying programs went further and gathered millions more communications than most Americans realized.
The NSA declassified three secret court opinions showing how it revealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that one of its surveillance programs may have collected and stored as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by ordinary Americans annually over three years. The court ruled the NSA actions unconstitutional and ordered the agency to fix the problem, which it did by creating new technology to filter out buckets of data most likely to contain U.S. emails, and then limit the access to that data.
Then there's this at the end:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the program is specifically to gather foreign intelligence, not spy on Americans.
"The reason that we're talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards in place at the NSA that monitor for compliance issues, that tabulate them, that document them and that put in place measures to correct them when they occur," Earnest said.
Wrong dipshit; the reason you're talking about it is because of some guy named Snowden.
It would appear Denninger is a bit exercised over that at the Market Ticker. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223759)
:munchin
He is spot on...
eine_frau
08-22-2013, 12:08
could somebody please help me clarify?
I am German, living in Germany.
This is what I understand:
In theory it is legal for the NSA to collect data from me, if I use gmail, or yahoo, or any US -based email provider.
If my email communication is with a US citizen it stops being legal.
is this true so far?
And what if the US citizen is not in the US but in Europe as well?
I understand it is expected that people do their own research here, but in between the techical "which data goes where", the legal jibberish, and the overall shadiness things are a little over my head.
oh, and I am sure none of my email content is interesting to the NSA...
thank you
Badger52
08-22-2013, 16:56
I'll try to address simply your specific questions. These will be highlighted.
could somebody please help me clarify?
I am German, living in Germany.
This is what I understand:
In theory it is legal for the NSA to collect data from me, if I use gmail, or yahoo, or any US -based email provider. Correct. (and they don't seem to have to prove much to do it.) It is important to understand they are not initially collecting information from you personally (well, probably not) but are sweeping up all data from the US-based provider.
If my email communication is with a US citizen it stops being legal. Not correct. In fact, your end of the communication could be swept up with the other end's even if you have a foreign provider but their's is US-based.
is this true so far? see above
And what if the US citizen is not in the US but in Europe as well? It has nothing to do with the physical location of the person, it has to do with them collecting records from a US-based telecommunication company. While they are supposed to review & throw away anything not important (and they get to define what that is), you can imagine that our international friends are a bit upset about finding their words might be swept up because they were addressed to someone using a US-based provider.
I understand it is expected that people do their own research here, but in between the techical "which data goes where", the legal jibberish, and the overall shadiness things are a little over my head. You're not alone there ma'am.
oh, and I am sure none of my email content is interesting to the NSA...
thank youHope this helps.
eine_frau
08-23-2013, 01:17
yes that helps a lot.
Thank you very much for taking the time...
I was thinking about using non US-based providers. But it is kind of pointless as long as everybody I communicate with uses gmail or yahoo.
oh well...
Badger52
08-27-2013, 07:33
Nothing to worry about if POTUS can pack a review panel with people like this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23/obama-pick-for-nsa-review-panel-wanted-paid-pro-government-shills-in-chat-rooms/)
eine_frau
08-27-2013, 07:47
lol...
I remember times ...when I was young and innocent... when I had faith in my government, and in the US government just as much.
Now I am not ecpecting anything coming out of a "review" other than a better smoke screen.
It looked like it was going to be a topic in the upcoming elections here in Germany,
but it is already dying down. I believe people are not really surprised, and apathy will do what it does...
Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html)
Surprised that WaPo is covering this. Some snips:
The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.
ddoering
09-08-2013, 13:18
Probably so they could spy on their enemies.........
Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html)
Surprised that WaPo is covering this. Some snips:
The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.
And I thought they were just tracking foreign targets...and doing it all by themselves...other than the 15 other intel agencies, a few hundred private and public companies, and not sharing too...
Let's hope more press pulls their thumbs out cause it affects everyone, including them; left, right, or in the middle.
Think it used to be called doing your job.
New Snowden leak show NSA shares raw data with Israel that includes your information.
Richard
The NSA is sharing data with Israel. Before filtering out Americans’ information.
WaPo, 11 Sep 2013
In the months since Edward Snowden’s classified document leaks, the Obama administration has repeatedly assured Americans that the National Security Agency does not intentionally collect information about U.S. citizens. The government has also said that when data are collected “inadvertently,” because an American is in contact with a foreign target, the data are protected by strict “minimization procedures” that prevent the information from being misused.
New documents from Snowden reported by the Guardian on Wednesday appear to contradict those claims. They reveal that the NSA has been sharing raw intelligence information with the Israeli government without first filtering it for data on the communications of American citizens.
The relationship was described in a “Memorandum of Understanding” between the NSA and the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU). The document is undated, but it refers to an earlier agreement “in principle” reached in March 2009. The memo outlines procedures that should be taken by ISNU to protect information regarding Americans and stresses that the constitutional rights of American citizens must be respected by Israeli intelligence staff.
According to the memo, NSA routinely sends ISNU “minimized and unminimized” signal intelligence (sigint) data. In other words, the U.S. government shares intercepted communications with the Israelis without first screening it for sensitive information about Americans.
Israel receives data that “includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content.”
The precautions Israel agrees to use for data on Americans are “consistent with the requirements placed upon the NSA by U.S. law and Executive order to establish safeguards protecting the rights of U.S. persons under the Fourth Amendment,” the memo says. The Israelis also promise to use “similar” safeguards for data concerning people in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom; all those countries cooperate closely with the NSA. Israel also agrees not to deliberately target Americans whose information they find in the data.
But these promises are not legally binding. According to the Guardian, the memo states that “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.”
What’s also noteworthy is that the memo allows Israeli intelligence to retain data they identify as belonging to Americans for up to a year. The United States merely requests that they consult the NSA’s special liaison adviser at the time they discover such data. But “any data that is either to or from an official of the US government” is supposed to be destroyed as soon as it is recognized.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/11/the-nsa-is-sharing-data-with-israel-before-filtering-out-americans-information/?wprss=rss_social-postbusinessonly&Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost&clsrd
The worse part of it is, they obviously lied. Telling the Israelis to respect Americans constitutional rights? So, they knew all along what they were doing? So, agents of the government, yet again, have lied to the American public. I am so surprised. And what will become of it? Nothing.
Badger52
09-11-2013, 19:12
And what will become of it? Nothing.Yup. Denninger's (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?forum=Market-Ticker) has an idea, but about as much faith in that happening as having Boehner, McCain, and Graham handling it.
The worse part of it is, they obviously lied. Telling the Israelis to respect Americans constitutional rights? So, they knew all along what they were doing? So, agents of the government, yet again, have lied to the American public. I am so surprised. And what will become of it? Nothing.
I wonder if there is even an audit process in place to determine if Israel is even living up to the "agreement", and if so, who does it? Where do the results go? If there is an audit process, I am betting it is just window dressing.
ddoering
09-12-2013, 06:36
Snowden is rapidly becoming my hero. It appears to me the the US gov is rotten to the core.
Snowden is rapidly becoming my hero. It appears to me the the US gov is rotten to the core.
His document releases backed up what I told folks who now think they can take the straight jacket off.
Still have the padded room though. Potato Salad :D
Imagine big gov't with access to all of your medical records? If NSA found a violation per year you can reasonably imagine that there were many more instances that went undiscovered.
'Loveint': NSA letter discloses employee eavesdropping on girlfriends, spouses
By Michael Isikoff
3 days ago
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent
The National Security Agency for the first time has admitted that some of their employees have spied on their girlfriends, boyfriends and spouses, listening to phone calls and checking emails without cause, known internally as LOVEINT, or love intelligence. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
National Security Agency employees improperly eavesdropped on the phone calls of girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives and spouses and engaged in other "intentional" abuses of their authority on 12 occasions since 2003, according to a newly released letter by the agency's inspector general.
"What's clear about the instances of abuse is that these have nothing to do with terrorism," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "This is about individuals prying into the private lives of the people closest to them. It's an abuse of government data that should not be in the government's hands."
<snip>
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/26/20709855-loveint-nsa-letter-discloses-employee-eavesdropping-on-girlfriends-spouses?lite