Slashdot Mirror
Snowden NSA Claims Partially Confirmed, Says Rep. Jerrold Nadler
bill_mcgonigle writes with this news from from CNET: "Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D NY) disclosed that NSA analysts eavesdrop on Americans' domestic telephone calls without court orders during a House Judiciary hearing. After clearing with FBI director Robert Mueller that the information was not classified, Nadler revealed that during a closed-door briefing to Congress, the Legislature was informed that the spying organization had implemented and uses this capability. This appears to confirm Edward Snowden's claim that he could, in his position at the NSA, 'wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president.' Declan McCullagh writes, 'Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.' The executive branch has defended its general warrants, claiming that 'the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without [constitutional] warrants,' while Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney at EFF claims such government activity 'epitomizes the problem of secret laws.'" Note that "listening in" versus "collecting metadata" is a distinction that defenders of government phone spying have been emphasizing. Tracking whom you called and when, goes the story, doesn't impinge on expectations of privacy. Speaking of the metadata collection, though, reader Bruce66423 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration took 'bulk metadata' from the phone companies under voluntary agreements for more than four years after 9/11 until a court agreed they could have it compulsorily." Related: First time accepted submitter fsagx writes that Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive has calculated the cost to store every phone call made in the U.S. over the course of a year: "It's surprisingly inexpensive. It puts the recent NSA stories (and reports from the Boston bombings about the FBI's ability to listen to past phone conversions) into perspective."
It is really sad but I simply assume anything that they deny in public, they are actually doing. they have no credibility at all about anything. Say what you will of bush, he opened the doors on this, but there is no way anyone should be able to support the over reaching, unconstitutional abuses of power that the current administration is doing.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Biden believes that collecting metadata is extremely disturbing and provides huge opportunities for abuse:
Biden in 2006 schools Obama in 2013 over NSA spying program
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
A frightening number of people seem to have a 'It's okay if it saves lives!' mentality. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but supporters of this sort of nonsense never got the memo.
Check UIDs. I'm COLD FJORD(826450). User COID FJORD(2949869) has impersonated me. Don't confuse us if he trolls you.
I don't know about this. Take 9/11 for example -- did GWB get voted out? Did he have his power limited? Did Congress refuse to let him do whatever wars he wanted?
No. He was re-elected. He expanded executive power. And even Democrats like Clinton were not reading the Intelligence Estimate calling into question GWB's push for Iraq and falling all over themselves to start a pointless war. All those private contractors profited handsomely. The revolving door between cabinet posts and VP of this or that is lubed up and spinning.
So, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps an attack results not in backlash, but in uplift for these DC fuckwads.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
On one hand you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering.
I'll take my chances. Statistically this century I've had a greater chance of drowning in my bathtub than being an American killed by a terrorist. And no, that's not evidence that the spying is working.
Now now, don't confuse Senator Obama with President Obama. They're entirely different people...
(I'm not sure to what extent I'm joking...)
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Yes.
I've lived 51 years, most of them O.K., and a few very well.
I'd be quite willing to die on my feet rather than live under tyrany on my knees. Somehow, either beats becoming infirm and dying of old age. On this issue, I thinks heads should roll. The responsible people (all, of them, Republican and Democrat alike), should be found out, tried for treason, and if found guilty, commensurately punished, to send a message to future politicians about who serves whom.
So, without further ado, and to certainly attract the attention at the good folks at the Secret Service:
What to do about a treasonous president
1. 218 (50%+1) of the 435 representative members of congress vote to imeach.
2. 67 (2/3) of the 100 Senators vote to convict.
3. 1 President is removed from office and is now subject to criminal prosecution.
4. 23 members of a grand jury indict him to stand trial for treason (Benghazi certainly qualifies: ordering troops to stand down when Americans are under attack?).
5. 12 members of a jury convict and sentence him for treason.
6. One disgraced, former president.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat with all the other traitors, and send a message to "politicians".
It's an easy process to remember: 218 67 1 23 12, almost like a phone number: (218)671-2312.
I am not afraid, of criticism, of torture, or of death.
In Liberty, Rene
When you sit in the chair, you'll never be the one you wanted to be while looking up to it. And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
There's a simple reason while politician change and change their speech once they get (re)elected. It's only then that they are faced with reality, whereas all the speeches before are totally disconnected from it. In the end, it's the same person, but facing different realities. I don't excuse them really for it... it rather have candidates saying the things how they are, but that won't get them elected.
Was I drunk the day that everyone signed away their freedoms? Did someone forge my signature on various documents to give rise to these monstrosities? When did I exchange freedom for security, and call it a fair trade? What is with these weak spirited responses condoning the yoke that beckons to the grave?
The home of the brave indeed. More like the home of the scared. The home of the frightened. The home of adult children threatened by the dark shadows cast by the bogie men they conjured up in the first place to protect them, bogie men that many of them never wanted. What happened to this country, that started off so strong, with such valiant leaders, only to end up like this...I fear it would take the resurrection of your forefathers to restore some valor to those frames. Yes, yes, we know you can fight wars, and win them...but it's been a while since you've fought one for the right reason. So here's one that you're scared of -> fighting one of your own creations, not on a battlefield filled with foreign enemies that you know nothing about, but on the court grounds of the land that you love so dear, over the laws that were setup to protect you if you but say the word 'No,' and yet, sadly, many of you cannot. You're scared, because you're not sure you can win this battle, when every other battle, until now, has been ducks in a barrel; you have to take a stand, if only on an issue, and there might be some repercussions for it. Better to choose the cowards way out, and remain silent, right? Then you can celebrate with everyone else after the battle has been won, without ever exposing yourselves...
I am John Hurt.