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.
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.
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?
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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
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