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."
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.
... what is their definition of a terrorist?
If you are being suspected that makes you a terrorist. With this definition everything works out.
A little depressing, but it's getting hard to tell.
Well, up to this story it was hard to tell. This one is so obviously true is breaks the pattern. How sad is that?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
anybody who gives 2 shits about their civil liberties.
Speaking of bullshit, what the devil is the deal with the damned voice I assume people get on RSS feeds? I don't recall ever checking a setting "Please read this to me in a terribly digitized voice every time I look at an article"
New here, you must be. Ponies, OMG, you loved would have.
Whether they are joking or not, regardless of their claims, the activity of the NSA is a violation of the constitution. It matters not what the FISA court says or what they believe it should be. It is a civil rights violation and they have been breaking the law. Without a warrant any collection of data is a violation of the 4th amendment. The purpose behind the 4th amendment was to stop general warrants, of which, the NSA activities qualify.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
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.
4/1. Pray that it's gone on 4/2.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
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?
James Clapper and Keith Alexander belong behind bars.
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]
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.
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
"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?
You think their replacements will be any different?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If we started putting these people behind bars when they break the law? Yes, eventually the replacements would get the hint.
Well maybe if we arrested them then beat them and water boarded them repeatedly, maybe that might get the point across?
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.
Slasdot's biggest april's fools joke this year: No april's fools jokes! All of the news is unbelievable!
Anyone that disagrees with power. Americans fighting UK army for independance would probably be called terrorists by today's standard.
And plus, they were doing it to protect us from [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice]. Everything is ok so long as you are doing it to fight [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice], right?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Terrorists are known to breathe air. Therefore, anyone who breathes air is a potential terrorist and needs to be under surveillance.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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
You're missing the point.
The GP is not calling them terrorists. He is saying that the current "authorities" would label them as terrorists if they tried something like that today and use that as an excuse to vanquish them. Nobody thinks they they are actually like Bin Laden and his evil (well, deceived) minions.
And I find it incredibly naive if you think that someone trying to start a revolution in the USA today would be labelled as anything else.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Here they are trying to be transparent
No, they aren't. They only admit what gets revealed.
I think they're trying really hard not to piss anyone off after the beta fiasco.
Well anyway, it sounds to me that the only solution to fix the letter agencies is to fire everyone, and not hire anyone that has any primary, secondary, or up to 4th degree connection to them for a period of no less than 10 years.
Om, nomnomnom...
And it's no wonder, when you look at American films and television. It's always some lone cop, on a vigilante mission to kill the bad guys, above the law. It's a fantasy that has been so ingrained in our culture at this point, that from when these guys are little kids to when they join the force they are already programmed to fail.
That actually works both ways. There is so much entertainment which involves terrorists and serial killers -- it's probably fair to say that the number of fictional serial killers exceeds reality by now. Which might cause the public, and possibly even some of the law enforcers who really should know better, to grossly overestimate the actual danger they're in from day to day. And overreact accordingly when something does happen.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
And plus, they were doing it to protect us from [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice]. Everything is ok so long as you are doing it to fight [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice], right?
My only fear with regard to "terrorism" — excluding the conversion of my country into a totalitarian police/surveillance state (as I consider this to be a realization rather than a fear) — manifests itself along the lines of: "I hope that steroid-fueled, combat-ready, bored cop over there doesn't think up an excuse to harass/question/search/detain/arrest/chem-spray/electrocute/beat/pop me, as he's all jacked-up to 'fight terror,' and there aren't any terrorists around to be fought (but I am), and I'm nine times more likely to be killed by a cop than killed by one of the elusive boogeymen the government seems to want me to fear."
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
How about if we fire them and put them in jail, and just not hire any replacements, period.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
How about if we fire them and put them in jail, and just not hire any replacements, period.
The problem is, you need intelligence agencies. You need to protect yourself from enemies foreign and domestic. You need to be able to be able to spy on other governments to find out their ulterior motives, and you need to be able to conduct covert operations instead of engaging in full out wars. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's sure a lot better than what we had before the agencies existed. But they've expanded beyond their scope and purpose.
Om, nomnomnom...