I'm just dumbfounded at the implication here that the rover's ability to flip a small rock is regarded as luck. If it's such a valuable occurrence, should they not have included a rock-flipping function in the plans?
It would only make sense to include that sort of functionality if it would be regularly used, which isn't likely. Given the tremendous constraints that they are under for space and weight it probably doesn't make sense. As to what is lucky, there is more than one description for that.
Old joke: Lost dog! Blind in one eye, missing right ear, tail missing, recently castrated. Answers to name of "Lucky!"
Actually yes, the FISA court is ultimately responsible to the Supreme Court, just like other courts. There is an intelligence review court that is designated for the appeals process, and the Supreme Court is over that.
In 1978, Congress passed the original version of FISA, which for the first time established a procedure by which the executive branch was required to seek authorization to conduct foreign surveillance activities. 4 FISA also created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA Court of Review). 5 These courts are staffed by federal court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the FISA Court of Review are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.
.... Chinese officials have begun wiretapping each other’s bedrooms and showers out of distrust. Even China’s president was wiretapped by a member of the country’s own Communist Party. -- Meet COS
The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):.... You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."
I suppose it is out of the question to even pretend that both the Justice Department attorneys and judges approach the job seriously and professionally since going to court is always done on a lark, no preparation needed.
In rare public remarks 10 years ago, a former presiding FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, described the process: "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application."
Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.
"We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger.
FISA warrant applications are inches thick, he said, and "if you're trying to sift through an enormous amount of data very quickly, I think it would be impractical." He said that getting an ordinary FISA warrant is "a voluminous, time-consuming process".
Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.
From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.
The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.
The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376
It would be easy to get the impression that few people posting here have any concept of what true professionalism means.
Since Congress and the Congressman in question already knew the answer, you can't argue that NSA was "poorly supervised" unless you argue that the Congressman is so simple minded that he can't keep important details of his job clear in his mind from one minute to the next. If you want to argue that, then you should be arguing that such a legislator is far too dangerous to elect due to mental deficiency. That also opens the question of why you would support such a mentally deficient Congressman unless you simply think he is in effect a reckless and unprincipled one. Of course supporting a reckless and unprincipled Congressman is troubling in its own right.
You are overlooking the fact that there are two data streams, one public and one private. The correct information could only legally be passed in private, and apparently was. The public data stream is irrelevant.
Depending on the program the difference between "Computer Engineering" and "Electrical Engineering" is often one of emphasis, not so much kind. (But maybe things have changed.)
Is it "possible" that fears of "US-bugged hardware" are responsible? Sure, as long as those companies are using crystal balls to place their orders based on knowledge of the future. (IOW - No)
At least now we won't have to live with the suspense of wondering when the first reference to NSA would come up.
From the perspective of today it is difficult to imagine the turbulence that the US was undergoing at the time. It started with the Civil Rights movements carrying forward from the 1950s, which resulted in continuing and growing struggles (both among races and between the states and Federal government), and passed through social upheaval, mass protest over Vietnam, race riots, political unrest, and an ongoing armed struggle against communism around the world that was proving difficult. The US even had its own active communist terrorist underground.
Yes, there were abuses, there was over stepping, there were injustices done by those in power. But their actions weren't occurring in a vacuum. Not all those who dissented were peaceful or innocent, some were deadly violent. Some "dissenters" wanted to change society by overthrowing the government. There were changes that needed to happen in society, problems in and with government that needed to be fixed. But not everyone that was seeking change at the time had unrealistic ideas about the world, and human nature. They tore down the social fabric without anything sturdy enough to replace it. You should be thankful if you don't see days like that again in the US. Some quite reasonably thought that the country might come apart. Cities burned. And it wasn't just the US, it was happening in countries around the world to varying degrees.
In Hollywood, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Reagan also identified with Roosevelt's internationalism, especially his opposition to the aggressions of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. After World War II, Reagan aligned with the dominant faction in the Democratic Party: anti-Communist liberals, whose ranks included President Harry Truman, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator Hubert Humphrey, and labor leader Walter Reuther. Reagan joined the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in 1937, became a member of the union's board in 1941 and its president in 1947 and continued to serve on the board after stepping down from the presidency in 1954. During that period, SAG was involved in a myriad of battles, including repeated efforts to purge itself of Communist influence. Reagan opposed the Communists and their allies; in 1953 he became a secret informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reporting on Communist activities in Hollywood.
Reagan, however, was wary of the indiscriminate anti-Communism then sweeping the country in the early days of the Cold War. He worried that SAG's programs designed to root out Communists might harm innocent actors and actresses. He was skeptical of the House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities, which in the late 1940s investigated Communist infiltration of Hollywood. But as president of SAG, Reagan helped implement the blacklist of suspected Communists that had been agreed to by movie producers frightened by the congressional investigations. Reagan did, however, work to clear the names of actors whom he thought had been wrongfully accused or had only dabbled with leftist groups, as he had done in the 1940s. He continued in the 1950s to campaign for Democratic candidates, including the liberal Helen Gahagan Douglas, who in 1950 lost a U.S. Senate race in California to Richard Nixon.
The only court defined in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Everything else is created by Congress, as is their power as granted in the Constitution.
Congress and Wyden knew the truth. If they did, as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports, how can there have in fact been a genuine damaging lie?
Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
It takes a special form of dyslexia to not understand what was going on.
Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.
Actually there is very little doubt that it was and is legal since every time the NSA actions have been tested in court in which a final judgment has been issued the NSA has won. People dispute the relevance to national security, but that doesn't really apply to the question of legality. It has been known for some time that most of the disrupted plots have been overseas. This Belgian plot may have been one of them.
You're also mistaken about the question of Wyden and Clapper. If you bothered to actually read the whole thing you know that Wyden almost certainly knew the truth as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports. What he did was try to improperly trick or maneuver Clapper into disclosing classified information publicly. Can it really be said to be lying if Congress and the Congressman in question knew the actual truth from that same organization as it was disclosed in closed session? I don't think so.
Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
You aren't really answering the real questions there, but are embracing Wyden's shabby behavior.
You seem to know dick, and plenty about it already. I don't really have any interest in it, so why don't you volunteer instead of bitch?
Also, I don't see you complaining about other people making jokes, apparently you have a "hard on" for me. You should do something about that, and I'm still not interested.
5. Couldn't NSA simply ask its allies to provide them with information about U.S. persons?
NSA is prohibited from requesting an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting.
I'm certainly willing to believe that other countries will accumulate info on US citizens and hold it, but does anyone have any evidence of the above claim?
Slashdot Mirror
It wheel never happen. Gib it up.
It's a pity you don't seem to serve a useful purpose. Even UnixWare seems to manage that, even if barely.
I'm just dumbfounded at the implication here that the rover's ability to flip a small rock is regarded as luck. If it's such a valuable occurrence, should they not have included a rock-flipping function in the plans?
It would only make sense to include that sort of functionality if it would be regularly used, which isn't likely. Given the tremendous constraints that they are under for space and weight it probably doesn't make sense. As to what is lucky, there is more than one description for that.
Old joke: Lost dog! Blind in one eye, missing right ear, tail missing, recently castrated. Answers to name of "Lucky!"
Gives new meaning to the phrase "rocket scientists"
Maybe they're Rockettes scientists. Great work, if you can get it.
Actually yes, the FISA court is ultimately responsible to the Supreme Court, just like other courts. There is an intelligence review court that is designated for the appeals process, and the Supreme Court is over that.
Data Sec. & Privacy Law 6:67 (2013)
In 1978, Congress passed the original version of FISA, which for the first time established a procedure by which the executive branch was required to seek authorization to conduct foreign surveillance activities. 4 FISA also created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA Court of Review). 5 These courts are staffed by federal court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the FISA Court of Review are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What could possibly go wrong?
No, it was redletterdave, as noted in the header.
I might have included this bit.
.... Chinese officials have begun wiretapping each other’s bedrooms and showers out of distrust. Even China’s president was wiretapped by a member of the country’s own Communist Party. -- Meet COS
The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000): .... You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."
I suppose it is out of the question to even pretend that both the Justice Department attorneys and judges approach the job seriously and professionally since going to court is always done on a lark, no preparation needed.
The judges who preside over America's secret court
In rare public remarks 10 years ago, a former presiding FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, described the process: "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application."
Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.
"We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger.
NSA Data Mining Is Legal, Necessary, Sec. Chertoff Says
FISA warrant applications are inches thick, he said, and "if you're trying to sift through an enormous amount of data very quickly, I think it would be impractical." He said that getting an ordinary FISA warrant is "a voluminous, time-consuming process" .
The judges who preside over America's secret court
Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.
From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.
The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.
The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376
It would be easy to get the impression that few people posting here have any concept of what true professionalism means.
Are you happier now?
Since Congress and the Congressman in question already knew the answer, you can't argue that NSA was "poorly supervised" unless you argue that the Congressman is so simple minded that he can't keep important details of his job clear in his mind from one minute to the next. If you want to argue that, then you should be arguing that such a legislator is far too dangerous to elect due to mental deficiency. That also opens the question of why you would support such a mentally deficient Congressman unless you simply think he is in effect a reckless and unprincipled one. Of course supporting a reckless and unprincipled Congressman is troubling in its own right.
Apparently someone isn't a Reagan fan.
You are overlooking the fact that there are two data streams, one public and one private. The correct information could only legally be passed in private, and apparently was. The public data stream is irrelevant.
Depending on the program the difference between "Computer Engineering" and "Electrical Engineering" is often one of emphasis, not so much kind. (But maybe things have changed.)
Is it "possible" that fears of "US-bugged hardware" are responsible? Sure, as long as those companies are using crystal balls to place their orders based on knowledge of the future. (IOW - No)
At least now we won't have to live with the suspense of wondering when the first reference to NSA would come up.
You might want to learn some history yourself.
From the perspective of today it is difficult to imagine the turbulence that the US was undergoing at the time. It started with the Civil Rights movements carrying forward from the 1950s, which resulted in continuing and growing struggles (both among races and between the states and Federal government), and passed through social upheaval, mass protest over Vietnam, race riots, political unrest, and an ongoing armed struggle against communism around the world that was proving difficult. The US even had its own active communist terrorist underground.
Gov. Wallace Attempts to Block Integration - June 11, 1963
Six Days of Watts Race Riot 1965/08
Stock Footage - DETROIT RIOTS 1967
Chicago Fire Dept. - Chicago Westside Riots 1968
A look back at the 1968 Democratic Convention
Washington DC 1968 Riots
Yes, there were abuses, there was over stepping, there were injustices done by those in power. But their actions weren't occurring in a vacuum. Not all those who dissented were peaceful or innocent, some were deadly violent. Some "dissenters" wanted to change society by overthrowing the government. There were changes that needed to happen in society, problems in and with government that needed to be fixed. But not everyone that was seeking change at the time had unrealistic ideas about the world, and human nature. They tore down the social fabric without anything sturdy enough to replace it. You should be thankful if you don't see days like that again in the US. Some quite reasonably thought that the country might come apart. Cities burned. And it wasn't just the US, it was happening in countries around the world to varying degrees.
1968: Prague, Berlin, and Paris
I see that some are still bitter that the communist infiltration of Hollywood failed.
American President: A Reference Resource
In Hollywood, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Reagan also identified with Roosevelt's internationalism, especially his opposition to the aggressions of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. After World War II, Reagan aligned with the dominant faction in the Democratic Party: anti-Communist liberals, whose ranks included President Harry Truman, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator Hubert Humphrey, and labor leader Walter Reuther. Reagan joined the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in 1937, became a member of the union's board in 1941 and its president in 1947 and continued to serve on the board after stepping down from the presidency in 1954. During that period, SAG was involved in a myriad of battles, including repeated efforts to purge itself of Communist influence. Reagan opposed the Communists and their allies; in 1953 he became a secret informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reporting on Communist activities in Hollywood.
Reagan, however, was wary of the indiscriminate anti-Communism then sweeping the country in the early days of the Cold War. He worried that SAG's programs designed to root out Communists might harm innocent actors and actresses. He was skeptical of the House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities, which in the late 1940s investigated Communist infiltration of Hollywood. But as president of SAG, Reagan helped implement the blacklist of suspected Communists that had been agreed to by movie producers frightened by the congressional investigations. Reagan did, however, work to clear the names of actors whom he thought had been wrongfully accused or had only dabbled with leftist groups, as he had done in the 1940s. He continued in the 1950s to campaign for Democratic candidates, including the liberal Helen Gahagan Douglas, who in 1950 lost a U.S. Senate race in California to Richard Nixon.
The only court defined in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Everything else is created by Congress, as is their power as granted in the Constitution.
How is your theory holding up?
Congress and Wyden knew the truth. If they did, as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports, how can there have in fact been a genuine damaging lie?
Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
It takes a special form of dyslexia to not understand what was going on.
Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.
Actually there is very little doubt that it was and is legal since every time the NSA actions have been tested in court in which a final judgment has been issued the NSA has won. People dispute the relevance to national security, but that doesn't really apply to the question of legality. It has been known for some time that most of the disrupted plots have been overseas. This Belgian plot may have been one of them.
You're also mistaken about the question of Wyden and Clapper. If you bothered to actually read the whole thing you know that Wyden almost certainly knew the truth as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports. What he did was try to improperly trick or maneuver Clapper into disclosing classified information publicly. Can it really be said to be lying if Congress and the Congressman in question knew the actual truth from that same organization as it was disclosed in closed session? I don't think so.
Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
You aren't really answering the real questions there, but are embracing Wyden's shabby behavior.
You seem to know dick, and plenty about it already. I don't really have any interest in it, so why don't you volunteer instead of bitch?
Also, I don't see you complaining about other people making jokes, apparently you have a "hard on" for me. You should do something about that, and I'm still not interested.
I will toss you a bone though.
I'm about 98% certain that English isn't his first language. I often strongly disagree with his ideas, but I'll cut him slack on spelling.
You're saying it was his density*. ;)
* Yes, that is on purpose.
It isn't really clear that they did in fact lie to Congress.
It wouldn't be surprising if former member of Congress, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has an entire gallery devoted to him.
So we often see claims like the above in the summary:
Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed, but we all know that means it is sent to a partner country for analysis, which is then sent back to the NSA."
On the other hand:
Frequently Asked Questions - Oversight
5. Couldn't NSA simply ask its allies to provide them with information about U.S. persons?
NSA is prohibited from requesting an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting.
I'm certainly willing to believe that other countries will accumulate info on US citizens and hold it, but does anyone have any evidence of the above claim?