Slashdot Mirror
NSA Confirms It Has Been Searching US Citizens' Data Without a Warrant
Charliemopps writes: "According to Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 'There have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.' Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant, according to the NSA."
I'm guessing.... no.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
... what is their definition of a terrorist?
Not sure where that leaves "communist."
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
wtf is up with the auto-play read-out loud BS? It's like being waterboarded with "beta" feature. Make it stop.
Bullshit
I think it's pretty funny
Where in that sentence do you think that the searches had been approved by FISA?
I think you need a lesson in reading comprehension, it claims the process used in the search had been approved by FISA, not these specific searches, and that is a very different thing.
The usual smokescreen doubletalk of course, but no where do they claim the search targets had been approved.
So, why are you trusting people who have got no approval, let alone specific approval?
Ah, thats right - you only believe in your rights not generic rights - and they haven't come for you yet.
A member of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement, or anyone who objects to the corruption, wealth funneling, war mongering imperialism, or the militarization of the police.
In otherwords, "me"...
(and "you")
"These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.' Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant, according to the NSA." No, I'm sorry. I don't really give two-fucking shits what kind of weasel-dicked lawyer-speak garbage these scum fucks have come up with, continually honing, and that boils down to "Because FUCK YOU, that's why". What I want to know is: "When the justice system is no longer interested in enforcing the clear spirit and intent of the US Constitution, what are we as citizens supposed to do?" We have no representation in congress, clearly the police are not interested in protecting us and ensuring the government is bound by its own laws. The answer is coming down to bloody and violent conflict, or a one-thousand year police state that makes the feudal structure of 10th century Europe look like club-med.
That might be what the NSA says, but how could anyone believe them after everything else that has happened?
I don't get it? If the person is is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, then the FISA court would rubber-stamp a warrant so quick it would make heads spin. So why not get the warrant?
So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.
Yeah, the masters of rubberstamping. Also, note how most things they approve of are unacceptably broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to collect the data *at all*.
You don't trust the people you gave trust to?
Never, at any point, have I ever gave them my trust.
[End Of Line]
Wow, I've never looked at it that way. How very insightful. The people in power don't think their abuses of power are wrong, or even abuses of power? What a shocking revelation! I'm going to view the NSA in a whole new light, and it's all thanks to you.
[End Of Line]
And if we actually knew what they were doing instead of having to guess, we'd probably agree.
Nope. They simply should not be collecting the data.
[End Of Line]
and reinstate the constitution. Problem solved.
Either communications (phone, email, twitter, etc.) are private and protected by the Constitution...or they are not. It cannot be both ways. If they are protected by the constitution...and the government, through its agency, the NSA, refuses to uphold the constitution, then a constitutional crisis is upon us...and the way forward on that is bleak since the constitution has been the basis for the existence of the United States for the last 2+ centuries. Here, we have the government essentially saying that their needs entitle it to disregard the constitution that they are sworn to uphold. Probably the only way to really resolve this is to arrest and bring the responsible officials into court on charges of treason...and it's not clear who or what would do the arresting and prosecution.
It doesn't matter what James Clapper's beliefs are, because he's just one person and we shouldn't judge the entire NSA organization just on the beliefs of a single member.
If you have communicated with someone "believed" to be a terrorist:
Say your friendly Kebab dealer at the corner where your phoned in and ordered 2x Lamacun 1x Doener Kebab,
perhaps his brother is an "orthodox" muslim (now it misses the bitter taste of calling extremist such) is believed to be a terrorist, so is his brother (blood is thicker ..) and so your are for (a day or two or a month, hey don't reason with a machine ..)
So questions to be asked:
a.) under which conditions is someone believed to be a terrorist
b.) how deep is the search depth
c.) what is ment with "communicated" .. "hey you dropped this 5$US bill ... Ohh thank you" this is "communicating"
- ebay buyer/seller
- same chatroom (e.g. IRC)
- same kebab dealer
You radically overestimate the will of the sheeple.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Like I didn't see this one coming. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone.
When you have the ability you use it, the more you use it the less defined the lines become.
"Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant"
Fair game. Really. And I speak here as the pacifist humanitarian that I am.
But how do you make distinction between a terrorist and a freedom figher whose people are trying to survive genonide under your friendly ("preferred") trading partners? Tibet (unique in every way; language, culture, ethnicity, script etc.)? Ukraine (unique and close to Europe)? Or perhaps just a member of some rural middle-eastern belief system from the 6th century?
What value system are you basing this "terrorist" label upon? Believing in freedom? Self-determination? Or something else? Saying unpleasant things about the militaristic occupying nation? (you'd disappear in China)
It's the 21st century so please make up your mind and finally make more than a pretend stand on this issue: who are the terrorists (who you may actually trade with) and who are the actual victims of terrorism (often state-sponsored)?
The whole democratic majority of the world (as long as it exists) has a last chance to decide what they consider acceptable, at a state level. Are your real opponents mere misguided goat herders or something state-sponsored and fundamentally game-changing?
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
What does "should not" have to do with any of this? They will, whether it's illegal or not, and regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it. Near as I can figure, we can all either metaphorically bend over and take it up the ass like good bitches, or just go and move elsewhere. It's not going to change just because of some subjective notion that they "shouldn't" do it... because they think they should, and they have the means by which to accomplish it, and that's all that matters to them. There's not a darn thing that any citizen can actually do about it that won't ultimately land them in prison, where one could end up taking things up the ass far more literally.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I gotta say, as a joke news posting, this one is in pretty poor taste. The NSA would never admit to this.
...the information they gather isn't private...
Well technically, it is, but the companies that own it gave it up or sold it voluntarily.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
My point being that no matter how right you may be, it's not something that most people are really willing to risk life or liberty for.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And the NSA is under the Executive branch of the US Government - the President of the US.
Back in 2001 - 2008, there was a President that was grabbing more power away from Congress and from we the people under the reason of National Security and safety and 9-11.
Some of us had a problem with that. We were called "unAmerican", "Bipartisan" and "Liberal".
When we protested and said that, "Whoever is next in office will get those powers and they WILL expand on them - regardless of their party." we were accused of using the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
Now, we have a President of another party. He has not done much to reduce the powers the previous Administration gained.
The next POTUS will use those powers further - regardless of party. People will use the vapid rhetoric of "well, we haven't had another terrorist attack since! So, he's doing something RIGHT!"
So, the next time someone accuses me or anyone for that matter of using the "slippery slope" logical "fallacy", I'm gonna shove this example up their ass.
It won't do any good.. Next election in '16 will be about the same bullshit issues - abortion, when life begins, too much taxes, and "national security.
Abortion: doesn't apply to me because if a loved one wants one - even if it's illegal here - we'll jump on a plane to somewhere where it is because I'm well to do - and that is how it was done way back when. Anti-abortion laws only affects the poor.
Taxes - I'm for that. I want to pay zero and have the middle class pay my way.
National security: I don't give a rat's ass because I'm stateless. My capital rules. You go ahead and send your sons and daughters to die and fight for oil....freedom. (Some asshole Thunderbird pilot on Reddit actually said that he was there to fight for the downtrodden and for freedom - never mentioning that we won't touch N. Korea. USAF - lead don't fly! )
See folks, we are all a bunch of peons. We got our cars, cable, internet, and an ability to rant on the Internet. (Irony intentional.)
We are thrown bones to shut us up - the social Conservatives are the easiest to shut up; but they do keep demanding more and they won't be happy until we are a theocracy like Iran.
I am done now because my disgust for all of you is starting to make me gag.
He's not merely a member - he's the one in charge.
HAHAHAHA!! The 6 degrees of separation. By this logic they can spy on the entire world because everyone knows someone who knows someone who kinda knows someone who . . .
It's a pity, then, that we live in a society that values everyone's opinions.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It's a pity, then, that we live in a society that values everyone's opinions.
OK, kill me, but I don't think that's a good thing. I'm uneducated on several major topics that appear in the newspapers on a daily basis. Example - Syrian Civil War (well, relatively under-informed). My opinion on that is worth less to society then someone who is much more familiar with the situation.
Conversely, I'm an amateur astronomer. Put me in a room with an astrologer and I'll rip him/her to shreds.
I think peoples' options matter, but not equally. An idiot (including myself) with no knowledge on a subject (sex life of the iguana?) has an opinion with a value that is near-zero. And that's just jim-dandy with me.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Well, this is having it both ways for the NSA. They have a very elastic use of English, i.e., they say data is not collected when it is gathered, only when it is queried. No you are saying that once its collected, they don't need a warrant because they already got it.
Now -- I think they should have a warrant to collect information (and by collect, I mean that in the normal human sense of the word, not the DC sense). But that's not how things are being applied right now, and your interpretation if it gained currency, when coupled with the NSA's, would mean the end of all warrant requirements, because nobody collects data till they look at it (NSA) and the data is already collected so there's no problem looking at it (You).
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
You don't. You're not understand what they are doing. They don't care about terrorists. They think they have the right to go through all of our data, all of the time. The constitution and laws of this country are simply another obstacle in their way. They want to read your mail? Record your calls? They look at your metadata, find a link to something... Terrorists, drugs, whatever... viola, you're a target.
I see you got your wish granted.
Was it? I fail to see the connection - Eich did not publicly climb the soapbox and make ridiculous statements. He keeps his bigotry private.
When that happens you get a new constitution which the shooters like and the rest of the population gets well and truly fucked over.
You don't get to keep the old one.
If you are "lucky" you get a Napoleon, less lucky and you get a Stalin - Washington got in because there was no need for a sea of blood to force the previous rulers to let go so is not an option no matter how lucky you are.
In the IRS, NSA, or elsewhere in the government.
You're presuming that every foreigner the NSA wants information about is actually a terrorist, and all the information that's come to light declares that to be bullshit. The NSA would collect information about every single human being outside of the United States if it had the technical capability to do so. Like every bureaucracy ever invented, it's purpose has evolved to mainly justifying its own existence.
But how do you make distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter
Both 'terrorists' - so all of your communications are subject to search and seizure if you "communicate" within 2-degrees of separation with any of them.
Heck, I've seriously begun to wonder if the Nigerian spammers aren't actually State-sponsored, to establish a 2-degree network of "communications" regarding "financing" that spans every Internet user. After all, the NSA cannot be expected to individually analyze every case, so they have to go by keyword matches and network analysis.
Mohammad received financial communications from Boseda and Richard received financial communications from Boseda, so Richard and Mohammad have reasonable suspicion of being in the same terrorist finance network and therefore all three of their communications are subject to search and seizure.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
After all, he was palling around with a known terrorist.
In fact, given the 6 degrees of separation factor, almost *every* American has an association with a terrorist, and even if not, the definition of terrorist can be widely expanded to make sure that you're an associate of a terrorist. Think about how many names are on that no-fly list...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If only the NSA would directly admit to its actions, rather than disguising the truth in a meaningless bundle of a paragraph...
Actually, initially, the Tea Party knew fairly much what it wanted. Then it got smeared in the media, labeled racist, which allowed it to be co-opted by right-wing Republicans.
Initially...
- balanced budget, debt reduction
- end to the wars and imperialism
- end to corporate bailouts and welfare
- end to the war on drugs
- secure borders
- civil focused platform, that offered a broader tent (gays, blacks, etc were quite welcome in the early Tea Party and Ron Paul Revolution movements)
That was what the movement was initially talking about. Which scared the crud out of the embedded factions. And why they launched a demonization campaign against the early libertarian focused groups. Because they were becoming broad tent. Can you imagine the power of a political group that took the libertarian wing of the Republican party, and then brought in gays and blacks. Both the Democrat and Republican party faced the possibility of a new rival, one that was more anti-war, and anti-corporate welfare than the Democrats. And more libertarian and fiscally conscious than the Republicans.
Rest assured, they succeeded in preventing that from happening. Then when OWS began, they did the same demonization to them but marketed toward the right. They wanted to absolutely prevent the Tea Partiers and OWS from realizing how much common ground they have.
This is the entire problem. The NSA are a law unto themselves. They operate beyond the law and beyond the constitution. They do what ever they want and we only find out about it when somebody "leaks" information. Then the same NSA can decide that that person is a terrorist and violate the rights of anybody who knows that person.
This is the definition of totalitarianism.