User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:52:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell no. BarryHoosain might have a tracking virus in it. Seriously,though, I see what you're trying to do. Someone has to present Barrys side of it. It all sounds reasonable until you simply think about how they know what's in your e-mail that justifies spying. See, the spying comes first. The justification follows. And if that little court says it's ok with the 4th Amendment, just trust them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place? You didn't read the document, did you? Read the document. No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right? Hell no. BarryHoosain might have a tracking virus in it. Seriously,though, I see what you're trying to do. Someone has to present Barrys side of it. It all sounds reasonable until you simply think about how they know what's in your e-mail that justifies spying. See, the spying comes first. The justification follows. And if that little court says it's ok with the 4th Amendment, just trust them. I've said no such thing. Nothing I have said could be construed to be an endorsement of any of the findings in that document. I just think that if this IS as important as we are all suggesting, AND it could even be proof/indications/justifications for claims that the United States government is violating the Constitution... ...shouldn't you at least take the time to read the document before commenting on it? Otherwise, all you are commenting on is the opinion of Washington Post writers, or politicians who didn't read it, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:55:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact with the Foreign target, that's a different story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:59:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact with the Foreign target, that's a different story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact with the Foreign target, that's a different story. But if their information is scooped up and found to have evidence of a crime it can be handed over to anyone that needs it for their official duties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:01:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact or within three hops with the Foreign target, that's a different story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact or within three hops with the Foreign target, that's a different story. Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:07:34 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. Are we all considered to be one hop from each other? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:10:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we all considered to be one hop from each other? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. Are we all considered to be one hop from each other? My guess is that it would be interpreted to say anyone who viewed your posts are hop one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:11:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean like the top of page 51 where it says: "is reasonably believed to contain foreign intelegence information or evidence of a crime" So they can vacuum up everything and you can be prosecuted based off what they find. And: "A report including the identity of the United States person may be provided to a 'recipient requiring the identity or such a person for the performance of official duties'." It also says that an analyst must review the contents of the intercepted communication to see if the NSA was allowed to collect it. So, if they weren't allowed to collect it and it doesn't contain evidence of a crime then they only hold onto it for five years. If there is evidence of a crime they are allowed to pass the information on to somebody that needs the information for the performance of their official duties. What part of all of this do you expect to make me feel better? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place? You didn't read the document, did you? Read the document. No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right? You mean like the top of page 51 where it says: "is reasonably believed to contain foreign intelegence information or evidence of a crime" So they can vacuum up everything and you can be prosecuted based off what they find. And: "A report including the identity of the United States person may be provided to a 'recipient requiring the identity or such a person for the performance of official duties'." It also says that an analyst must review the contents of the intercepted communication to see if the NSA was allowed to collect it. So, if they weren't allowed to collect it and it doesn't contain evidence of a crime then they only hold onto it for five years. If there is evidence of a crime they are allowed to pass the information on to somebody that needs the information for the performance of their official duties. What part of all of this do you expect to make me feel better? I don't think you understand the context of the page you quoted. It's not the court finding, but a description of the NSA minimization framework. It speaks about collecting the communications of a person believed to be a Foreign target. It also speaks specifically about IF it is determined that what was believed to be a non-US Person turns out to be a US Person not associated with a crime or Foreign Intelligence, those recorded communications must be swiftly destroyed. The footnotes go on to explain that in any situation when collecting Foreign communications, IF it is determined that the selector is that of a US Person not associated with a crime or Foreign Intelligence, that those must be destroyed. What's your opinion on THAT? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:18:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But if their information is scooped up and found to have evidence of a crime it can be handed over to anyone that needs it for their official duties. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact with the Foreign target, that's a different story. But if their information is scooped up and found to have evidence of a crime it can be handed over to anyone that needs it for their official duties. It did not say that. It describes the dissemination process as requiring the identity of the US Person to be deleted, IF the communication is found to be of value to a criminal or CI investigation, and ONLY if that person is determined to be an agent of a Foreign power, or associated with foreign terrorism, is it acceptable to not delete the identity. Reading is awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:23:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact or within three hops with the Foreign target, that's a different story. Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. That's true, but if the "hop" is not pertinent, and it is a US Person, it must be deleted. For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:28:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's true, but if the "hop" is not pertinent, and it is a US Person, it must be deleted. For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. That's true, but if the "hop" is not pertinent, and it is a US Person, it must be deleted. For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Do you really believe that the NSA is purging any data that they collect? I dont. Imagine if the pizza delivery guy was part of the sleeper cell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:29:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them... The Tree of Liberty is looking thirsty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:30:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Unless he wanted anchovies . . . .or a meatless loaded . Meatless loaded is clearly Unamerican and damned sure needs to be watched closely for at least 90 days ....waterboard accordingly . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:32:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Not surprised...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:32:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you really believe that the NSA is purging any data that they collect? I dont. Imagine if the pizza delivery guy was part of the sleeper cell. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. That's true, but if the "hop" is not pertinent, and it is a US Person, it must be deleted. For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Do you really believe that the NSA is purging any data that they collect? I dont. Imagine if the pizza delivery guy was part of the sleeper cell. I'm just describing what's in the court findings and the document in the OP. Whether any of these laws are followed or rules adhered to, is not something I can determine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:33:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless he wanted anchovies . . . .or a meatless loaded . Meatless loaded is clearly Unamerican and damned sure needs to be watched closely for at least 90 days ....waterboard accordingly . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Unless he wanted anchovies . . . .or a meatless loaded . Meatless loaded is clearly Unamerican and damned sure needs to be watched closely for at least 90 days ....waterboard accordingly . Welcome back. Glad you're breathing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:40:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Welcome back. Glad you're breathing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Unless he wanted anchovies . . . .or a meatless loaded . Meatless loaded is clearly Unamerican and damned sure needs to be watched closely for at least 90 days ....waterboard accordingly . Welcome back. Glad you're breathing. Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:41:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this? 
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:47:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Well if we can just vote more republicans into office
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:48:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. when the next big revelation is made, there will be even more people realizing their TINFOIL TINFOIL comments were a bit.... premature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:49:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:51:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did I make it in before the bootlickers?
May their chains rest lightly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 1:54:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. After being analyzed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 2:01:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. Practice vs paper work, we may never know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 2:10:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After being analyzed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. After being analyzed. But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 2:35:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. After being analyzed. But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 2:37:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 2:47:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. How do we know if they're in violation of the law if everything they do is inherently secret? How do we, the American people, hold them accountable for that is required of them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 2:49:25 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do we know if they're in violation of the law if everything they do is inherently secret? How do we, the American people, hold them accountable for that is required of them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. How do we know if they're in violation of the law if everything they do is inherently secret? How do we, the American people, hold them accountable for that is required of them? Vote well, and demand oversight from you representatives. That FISA Court ruling is an example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 3:42:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. Every call has to be collected, recorded, stored and analyzed before they can determine if it fits the criteria to be purged. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 3:46:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's all Bush's fault Actually, yes. For once. Although I place the real blame on Cheney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 4:04:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every call has to be collected, recorded, stored and analyzed before they can determine if it fits the criteria to be purged. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But deleted. That's a far cry from claims of everything being recorded and stored. Except someone actually has to delete it and based on my experience with technology there's plenty of things you're supposed to do that people just never get around to doing. Not many people had an idea of what they were doing months back so there's no guarantee there will be oversight to ensure said data is deleted. Easy to write in a memo, much different in practice. You really think their priority 1 is purging this data rather than moving on to the next intelligence task? Regardless, that court ruling and the stated practices laid out in the document makes it very clear what the law requires them to do. IF they fail to do this, they are in violation of the law. Again, that is a FAR CRY from every call being collected, recorded and stored. Every call has to be collected, recorded, stored and analyzed before they can determine if it fits the criteria to be purged. No. You obviously did not read the document. Don't you think this is important? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:37:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you understand the context of the page you quoted. It's not the court finding, but a description of the NSA minimization framework. It speaks about collecting the communications of a person believed to be a Foreign target. It also speaks specifically about IF it is determined that what was believed to be a non-US Person turns out to be a US Person not associated with a crime or Foreign Intelligence, those recorded communications must be swiftly destroyed. The footnotes go on to explain that in any situation when collecting Foreign communications, IF it is determined that the selector is that of a US Person not associated with a crime or Foreign Intelligence, that those must be destroyed. What's your opinion on THAT? Well the first thing we have to talk about is the definition of 'collected'. For a normal person it is when the NSA makes a copy of the data, but for the NSA it means when they look at the data they made a copy of. But, since we are working off the NSA's documents I will assume that it is the second. So what you are saying is basically what I said. The NSA get's to ingest as much data as they want with no concern for who is communicating. Then when they do a query, they look to see if it contains a crime or intelligence. If it contains neither then they get rid of it. If it contains evidence of a crime (by the way, do you know how many crimes there are?) then they hand it off for somebody to prosecute. So...you can be prosecuted based off information that was collected and processed without a warrant. And you want to know what I think about that? I think that is a crock of shit and should be unconstitutional. But since somebody said the word terror then the Constitution be damned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:38:59 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It did not say that. It describes the dissemination process as requiring the identity of the US Person to be deleted, IF the communication is found to be of value to a criminal or CI investigation, and ONLY if that person is determined to be an agent of a Foreign power, or associated with foreign terrorism, is it acceptable to not delete the identity. Reading is awesome. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. I will read it later tonight or tomorrow. Question to the part in red above: Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant? According to the document, no. Not targeted. However, if they are in contact with the Foreign target, that's a different story. But if their information is scooped up and found to have evidence of a crime it can be handed over to anyone that needs it for their official duties. It did not say that. It describes the dissemination process as requiring the identity of the US Person to be deleted, IF the communication is found to be of value to a criminal or CI investigation, and ONLY if that person is determined to be an agent of a Foreign power, or associated with foreign terrorism, is it acceptable to not delete the identity. Reading is awesome. No it doesn't. It says that the identity information must be removed unless the person the information is given to needs the identity information for their official duties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:40:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just describing what's in the court findings and the document in the OP. Whether any of these laws are followed or rules adhered to, is not something I can determine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget the three hops rule. You don't have to be in direct contact with anyone to be swept up. That's true, but if the "hop" is not pertinent, and it is a US Person, it must be deleted. For example: A targeted terrorist in Yemen calls an unknown person in the United States and tells them to "activate the sleeper cells for the attack." If that person in the United States (not necessarily a US Person) then immediately makes several calls, those calls are considered "hops." Clearly there are exigent circumstances that should allow such calls to be tracked. The document linked in the OP makes it clear that if the sleeper cell guy then orders a pizza, that contact will be deleted, if the call is determined to be just that. Do you really believe that the NSA is purging any data that they collect? I dont. Imagine if the pizza delivery guy was part of the sleeper cell. I'm just describing what's in the court findings and the document in the OP. Whether any of these laws are followed or rules adhered to, is not something I can determine. No, but you can determine that Snowden is working for the Russians and has handed everything over to them. You don't need evidence for that, only to think bad thoughts about the NSA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:41:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:46:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. If they are taking backups of the systems, then "delete" isn't really happening. All the data is a quick mouse click away. Deleted my ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:48:45 PM EDT
[#37]
All the tools are in place for our government to become the most repressive in the history of the world. This sort of technology has not been available before recently, the Stasi and KGB only wish they had these capabilities. Kind of scary.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 5:56:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Secret permission from a secret kangaroo court. Wonderful.  Just like our forefathers envisioned... err, wait a minute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 6:24:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. So not all calls are being collected and stored, as was previously claimed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 6:31:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So not all calls are being collected and stored, as was previously claimed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. So not all calls are being collected and stored, as was previously claimed? They are being recorded, then stored, then some of them are deleted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 6:34:54 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are being recorded, then stored, then some of them are deleted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. So not all calls are being collected and stored, as was previously claimed? They are being recorded, then stored, then some of them are deleted. ALL calls? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 6:37:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ALL calls? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. If they weren't being stored there would be nothing to delete. So not all calls are being collected and stored, as was previously claimed? They are being recorded, then stored, then some of them are deleted. ALL calls? Every single one? Oh, I'm sure there are some that they don't record. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 6:53:48 PM EDT
[#43]
So Cincinnatus, do you think it is a problem that the NSA collects large volumes of data without a specific warrant then deletes only the data that is not foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime?
Would you accept it if a police department searched houses door to door so long as they promised to not worry about anything that wasn't a crime or foreign intelligence related? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:00:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read. The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved. The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted. Read it before opining on it. It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed. Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either. Read it yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:02:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So an executive agency made a secret request to a secret court to allow it to disregard the 4th amendment, this request was granted and the elected representatives who did know about it were prohibited by law from mentioning it to the public or their fellow legislators. Where was that thread where some posters here were implying that if you didn't agree with the NSA's actions then you were some aspiring fascist who wanted to overturn our democratic government? The thread is probably archived now but there were a few doing just that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The court’s expansion of authority went largely unnoticed when the opinion was released, but it formed the basis for cryptic warnings last year by a pair of Democratic senators, Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Mark Udall (Colo.), that the administration had a “back-door search loophole” that enabled the NSA to scour intercepted communications for those of Americans. They introduced legislation to require a warrant, but they were barred by classification rules from disclosing the court’s authorization or whether the NSA was already conducting such searches.
“The [surveillance] Court documents declassified recently show that in late 2011 the court authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless searches of individual Americans’ communications using an authority intended to target only foreigners,” Wyden said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Our intelligence agencies need the authority to target the communications of foreigners, but for government agencies to deliberately read the e-mails or listen to the phone calls of individual Americans, the Constitution requires a warrant.” So an executive agency made a secret request to a secret court to allow it to disregard the 4th amendment, this request was granted and the elected representatives who did know about it were prohibited by law from mentioning it to the public or their fellow legislators. Where was that thread where some posters here were implying that if you didn't agree with the NSA's actions then you were some aspiring fascist who wanted to overturn our democratic government? The thread is probably archived now but there were a few doing just that. Anybody who believes that our rights aren't being trampled is either an idiot of epic proportions or lying their ass off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:11:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is a storm approaching.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:12:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them... In for the lol by the lying Statist, or whatever they want to call themselves these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:15:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In for the lol by the lying Statist, or whatever they want to call themselves these days. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them... In for the lol by the lying Statist, or whatever they want to call themselves these days.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:37:46 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is anyone really surprised by this?
I'd say half of arfcom is surprised by this - because a few months ago half of arfcom was saying how shit like this is impossible in America and if you believe otherwise, you need to loosen the tinfoil hat you're wearing. A few months ago people were saying that every phone call is recorded and stored. The document in the OP describes them being deleted. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:39:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Cincinnatus, do you think it is a problem that the NSA collects large volumes of data without a specific warrant then deletes only the data that is not foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime? Would you accept it if a police department searched houses door to door so long as they promised to not worry about anything that wasn't a crime or foreign intelligence related? That is not a comparable analogy. You didn't actually read the entire document, huh? The document states that they are not collecting and storing data that is not associated with a foreign target. Read it. Accept it or dismiss it. But this IS another Snowden document. Do we believe the document or dismiss it? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
