General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI still haven't seen any evidence of the NSA spying on Americans.
I've read a lot about metadata and potential for abuse, but nothing in terms of actual evidence that Americans are being spied on.
The President states, "There is no spying on Americans."
Where is the evidence that proves this statement a lie?
There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971026
Excerpt: Obama talks NSA in Charlie Rose interview.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)That's pretty special.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If you've got contrary evidence, just post it.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...because they're chapped and it's bugging me, when I read your comment.
You made me bite my tongue.
You're just lucky it isn't bleeding.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)Then that means they are doing it right.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Greenwald/Snowden or anyone have not shown any evidence NSA is spying on Americans.
And all of the 20,000 documents Greewald claims to have in his possession will all concentrate on foreign spying (but of course Greenwald will fail to mention any spying being foreign in his release of the docs).
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)can't you just sense the big eye looking at you now?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Fear the Unknown. Isn't that the motto of the John Birchers
Sorry, I'll leave the paranoid politics to the wingnuts.
msongs
(67,462 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)WTF?!
Can't be a DU'r, some naked crazy dude says something we believe em dammit!!!!
/sarcasm <-cause that's needed here
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)By now.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order released yesterday by The Guardian reveals that the U.S. government is regularly tracking the phone calls of potentially millions of Americans.
ACLU attorneys have been monitoring the U.S. governments use of the Patriot Act for years, and this document confirms our biggest fears. Have a look at the notes weve made on the court order to see how we understand what it says about the powers the government claims. (Just click on the document below and hover on the red dots to see our comments. This embed will serve content from thinglink.com.)
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)in a mass domestic surveillance program. The claims, for example by the OP, are not serious. I have no idea who you all think you are fooling, but it isn't anyone reading this message board.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Where's the evidence?
madokie
(51,076 posts)Seems to me there isn't much evidence needed around here to set hair on fire
I wish I was just being sarcastic but I'm not
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He's reading off the script. I have no idea why at this point. It isn't like he can run for office again.
randome
(34,845 posts)Where is this evidence? Something beside vague claims and might have/could have insinuations.
I'm not even asking for proof, just evidence.
So far there isn't any. Greenwald's one claim to fame -PRISM- is not what he thought.
Snowden said he could spy on anyone with an email address. Why didn't he do that to get evidence for us?
He said he "saw things" but he will never say what that means.
Is the NSA watching our thoughts form as we type? Evidence?
Carl Bernstein said it looks like the NSA has robust procedures in place to prevent abuse. I agree with him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
appleannie1
(5,072 posts)could access all sorts of data bases but if I did without authority and a damn good reason, I would have been punished. Having the ability to do something does not mean it is done regularly. There would be no unemployment in this country if everyone's emails were being read. They would be begging for more people to read them all.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts)..
.
.
I expect you know that already.
CC
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And the problem for the ACLU's argument is that data doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the phone companies, per a 1979 SCOTUS decision. And the phone companies have already been selling that data for years.
It's difficult to argue under current law that such a program is unconstitutional. If Congress changes the law so that our metadata belongs to us, or otherwise protects it, then such a program could become unconstitutional. But that's not current law.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)prior to Snowden because the ACLU could not establish that they or anyone else had standing. Their attempts to force that documentation via FOIA were stone-walled. That obstruction has now been erased.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which will run smack into the problem I covered above.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)that the NSA had been illegally spying on you personally.
You can't possibly see the facts while you've got your mind and eyes tightly shut and you're screeching LALALALALALA I can't hear you at the top of your lungs.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)She never, ever will
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:55 AM - Edit history (1)
"Either way, Obama isn't a dictator and when he does act outside of the constitution even following the law, bashers still bash"
So not only do you admit and support the fact that Obama acts outside the Constitution and follows un-Constitutional laws, you can't can't figure out why some people may criticize this? Excuse me if I don't take your opinion on NSA spying seriously.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)But forgot the image.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)once a repuke comes into office.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)No reason to blindly support a policy by Republicans! They aren't our team.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)11 years ago, 2002:
...
According to its Web site, which features a Latin slogan that means ''knowledge is power,'' ''Total Information Awareness of transnational threats requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models.'' To this end, T.I.A. seeks to develop architectures for integrating existing databases into a ''virtual, centralized, grand database.'' In addition to analyzing financial, educational, travel and medical records, as well as criminal and other governmental records, the T.I.A. program could include the development of technologies to create risk profiles for millions of visitors and American citizens in its quest for suspicious patterns of behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/15TOTA.html
Ari Fleischer told us all what that means in no uncertain terms on 9/26/01:
Meanwhile Bagdad Bob still hasn't seen any evidence that the US has invaded Iraq.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)TIA didn't happen. It was a proposal that got shot down. As announced by the same people that announced TIA. Though plenty of conspiracy theorists keep claiming it exists.
There's TIA-like programs as released by Snowden, but the problem is those programs are spying on non-US persons. That's legal. Non-US persons don't have Constitutional rights.
And ominous quotes from Fleisher are no more "evidence" than quotes from Bagdad Bob.
If Greenwald has this mountain of documents proving spying on US persons, then how come he hasn't managed to put out a single page that shows it? Every single document he has released shows programs target non-US persons, and has procedures to avoid targeting US persons.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's amazing that with such a giant mountain of evidence you haven't quite managed to point to a bit showing actual spying.
PsychoBunny
(86 posts)That's the whole freakin' point of spying!
Jeeeeezzzzz.
creon
(1,183 posts)No content in post
PsychoBunny
(86 posts)How about - covert?
Silent3
(15,337 posts)Even if there weren't an Edward Snowden or any NSA revelations, that reasoning would mean a lack of evidence simply means the spies are doing an even better job of spying.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I cant keep up!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Using their power to collect massive amounts of private communications and data, agencies like the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) apply computer programs to draw links and make predictions about peoples behavior. Tracking people two, three, four steps removed from the original surveillance target, they build communities of interest and construct maps of our associations and activities.
With this sensitive data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. The data sits indefinitely in government databases, and the names of many innocent Americans end up on bloated and inaccurate watch lists that affect whether we can fly on commercial airlines, whether we can renew our passports, whether we are called aside for secondary screening at airports and borders, and even whether we can open bank accounts.
Dragnet surveillance undermines the right to privacy and the freedoms of speech, association, and religion.
edited to add that today's talking point is a big fail
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You linked to a generic statement about metadata.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Not even the organizations responsible for them have denied it.
As for metadata It is like our vice Prez said back in the day and I agree
there should be a thorough investigation.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)by Greg Henderson
August 07, 201312:44 AM
President Obama defended the , telling NBC's Jay Leno on Tuesday that: "There is no spying on Americans."
"We don't have a domestic spying program," Obama said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack. ... That information is useful."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/06/209692380/obama-to-leno-there-is-no-spying-on-americans
That's good enough for me!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)LumosMaxima
(585 posts)is that it doesn't mean that the evidence does not exist. It just means you're not looking at it. Like the guy who once told me he'd "never seen any evidence" that homosexuality exists among non-human animals. The evidence was there -- he just hadn't seen it himself, and so his assertion was meaningless.
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See:
According to the Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his Polite Conversation and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 Works of Thomas Chalkley. The full saying is: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know
PsychoBunny
(86 posts)"Like the guy who once told me he'd "never seen any evidence" that homosexuality exists among non-human animals. The evidence was there -- he just hadn't seen it himself, and so his assertion was meaningless." But it was true.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)If there's a giant pile of evidence, surely you can post one bit of actual spying on US persons.
(And note that the metadata program doesn't qualify, since the SCOTUS says it isn't our data)
Logical
(22,457 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Afterwards, he explained that he gave the least untruthful answer possible.
And Senator Wyden knew the answer before he asked the question, according to Saxby Chambliss.
So obviously, there has been no spying on Americans.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The fact they say they won't look it without a warrant is irrelevant. That's not the way it's supposed to work in this country.
Law enforcement gets probable cause and then obtains a warrant. THEN they can collect the data on those persons.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-4th amendment
The government is clearly violating this amendment by collecting our data. The government is putting the cart before the horse.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I'm pretty sure if you read the terms of service agreement from your ISP, your cell phone provider or any website you have a membership with, something to that effect will be in there. And something to the effect of cooperating with law enforcement at their own discretion is in many of these agreements too.
You nor I own the business records, the businesses own them and there is no part of the fourth amendment that guarantees that governments can't collect aggregates of data from business records.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Does every bit of digital data belong to someone else?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...with the standard warrant that only covers particular individuals. There is plenty of legal precedent established by past court cases that says that phone calls made on your own private phone can't be intercepted without a warrant.
Emails on the other hands are a different question. I believe we need more legal precedent there. I'm inclined to say that it depends on the privacy agreement that you and your email provider both agree to.
Google's privacy policy states:
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues.
protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users or the public as required or permitted by law.;
That last part can be interpreted with a fairly broad reading in my opinion. Its saying that if Google administrators believe that its necessary to disclose information to protect against the harm of the public, then they will disclose it. Everyone who signs up for an account is forced to agree to this as well and as far as I know, there is no law saying they can't allow the government to have that information within those parameters.
Don't get me wrong. I want this NSA bullshit scaled down about 20 notches. But my feeling is, the laws are not structured the way we would probably prefer them to be or how some might assume.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But the routing information is public.
To use a real-world make analogy, anyone can read the address and return address from the outside of the envelope.
Now, in reality email is much more like a postcard - the content is visible to every server along the way, so getting the content is trivial.
But back to the topic at hand, Greenwald and Snowden haven't released any evidence of emails being gathered on US persons without a warrant. They have released evidence of emails being gathered on non-US persons.
But what people are claiming is the non-US persons programs are also gathering on US persons. What those people are failing to do is provide evidence that this is happening.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That really is how it works.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Your argument is specious, at best.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So it's theirs, obviously.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)and handed them over to US intelligence.
That's very closely analogous to phone metadata, since it's just a record of who is mailing whom and not what they mailed.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)The fact that that's OKAY with you, and that you base your argument on it.
Shame.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Records being collected by NSA is like the information shown on our bills, I have yet to get anyone to tell me how the conversation on the calls is provided by the records. I will even help them, NO your phone calls are not recorded. It has been for many years the ability to wiretap, again this is with another warrant specific to.the line of interest. It is very simple, there is not enough personnel available to record and listen to every call.
villager
(26,001 posts)Yeah, I got a million of 'em!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)so I'm going with the humans for now.
villager
(26,001 posts)creon
(1,183 posts)alc
(1,151 posts)They can't use it in courts. It wasn't collected constitutionally and they don't want to expose their methods for common criminal cases.
If they use it outside of courts, they still don't want anyone to know, so you won't see evidence unless they screw up. You may see an unexpected election result - and anti-NSA candidate dropping out or a pro-NSA candidate getting unexpected donations. Or an unusual oversight vote or court appointment. Or the RNC may get a list of democrat donors and details they can use to stop donations. But the NSA would certainly not want you to see evidence if those things happen.
Or it may be that they never have and never will use the information unethically or illegally. It comes down to how much trust you have in the NSA and in current and future presidents as to whether or not you think collecting the information is a good idea. You won't get evidence, especially if they are making it easier to spy on journalists.
randome
(34,845 posts)Rules and regulations, when put into place appropriately, prevent abuses. That's all we have to make illegality or abuse less likely.
There is no law, no promise, that will stop someone from doing what he/she desires.
But Carl Bernstein said it appeared to him that the NSA's system of checks and balances were pretty good. And if what was hinted at in one of the PowerPoint slides is true -that there are 4 levels of approval before data can be viewed- I would agree with that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
leveymg
(36,418 posts)For several decades, every real mass casualty "foreign" terrorist attack that has succeeded inside the US has been carried out by groups and individuals associated with CIA covert operations. In some of these, particularly 9/11, the NSA was conducting surveillance on some of the principal participants, but the FBI was prevented from accessing this data by another federal agency, the Central Intelligence Agency.
Consider this, for instance, about the hijackers who commandeered Flt. 77 on 9/11: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=143890
(FBI Director) Mueller's claims omit those key facts. The Director instead stated that Khalid al-Midhar was being monitored by intelligence agencies, but they lost track of him, Mueller said. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0613/Secret-NSA-program-could-have-derailed-9-11-attacks-FBI-director-says-video
In each major terrorist attack that occurred here during the last twenty years, one or more of the perpetrators was known directly to the CIA and identified as a terrorist, yet they somehow managed to enter the US and carry out attacks. This is true going back to WTC '93, and includes 9/11, the string of Anwar al-Awlaki-related incidents (which included 9/11 and the Underwear Bomber), and the Tsarnaev brothers. In other words, almost all real terrorism that has caused civilian casualties in America in recent times has been carried out by "our" terrorists, or more accurately, individuals known by the CIA to be part of terrorist groups.
Let's look at the older Boston Bomber, Tamarlan Tsarnaev. Tamarlan was nominated by the CIA as a terrorist in the fall of 2011 after a Massachusetts triple-murder in which the older brother is now implicated in the killing of his closest friend. Nonetheless, while an active murder investigation was ongoing, Tamarlan was allowed to leave the country to travel to Russia and Chechnya where he met with Islamic militants, and then hastily returned when his local contact with the militants was killed by the Russian security forces. Yet, inexplicably, he was never stopped or questioned during these travels, despite being on three terrorist watch lists. Again, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was designated a terrorist at about the same time he is alleged to have been involved in a triple murder, but at the time whatever was known to the CIA was never turned over to Boston Police or the FBI. In addition, he was not stopped when he left or returned to the US, despite the fact that he is not a US Citizen and was listed on the watchlist: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/27/17945669-boston-bombing-suspects-mother-was-in-us-terror-database?lite
If, after 9/11, we had simply curtailed the CIA's use of terrorists, instead of hastily passing the Patriot Act, we wouldn't be having this debate about NSA. Instead, the government threw money at NSA contractors to spy on everyone, Bush invaded Iraq, and the CIA continued along its merry way, running known terrorists in and out of the country who proceed to carry out attacks with seeming impunity.
Unfortunately, American casualties from terrorist attacks is seen as acceptable collateral damage of CIA covert operations (or, treated as acceptable by US policymakers, who never really change the way intelligence agencies do business) and are used as a pretense to go to war (not necessarily against those who actually attack us) and to build up a police state apparatus inside the US.
This is the real "intelligence failure" of U.S. Counter-terrorism. The lies told to obscure and redirect responsibility for these losses are all the more revolting for the fact that they are so transparent.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...thanks for that. It is so obvious that our government needs to change its way of operating; sadly, it is also obvious that this is not in the cards. I don't know what it will take to change things, I really don't.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 02:13 PM - Edit history (9)
The Tsarnaev case points out the fatal lack of reform and control over U.S. covert operations. In particular, we now see that the Obama Administration has in fact not been successful in efforts to fix what the President previously characterized as "a systemic failure" of U.S. intelligence to prevent the entry of persons known to the CIA to be terrorists. That this obvious fact after the Boston Bombing is being pointed out on a blog and not in the major media also highlights that there has also been a failure of the corporate press, and its abdication of any meaningful role since 9/11 as public watchdog over these dangers.
At the beginning of the Obama Presidency, and that seems a long time ago, there seemed to have been some cause for hope for change after the 2009 Underwear bomber incident. Obama was reported to have been furious that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was known to the CIA since the previous August, was allowed on a Xmas Day flight to Detroit at Amsterdam's Skocpol Airport. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2009/12/obama-systemic-failure-allowed-alleged-bomber-on-plane.html The President was quoted at the time as saying,
A new candor by the Administration appeared to have been signaled when, in early January 2010 Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pretty much came out and admitted in public testimony to a Senate Committee that a decision had been made to permit the Underwear Bomber to keep a visa to enter the US even though he was a known intending terrorist. Here's the key section of Kennedy's testimony, that was widely ignored:
1/20/10: Statement of Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management - Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_4635.html - Cached - SimilarIn addition to these changes, the Department is reviewing the procedures and criteria used in the field to revoke visas and will issue new instructions to our officers. Revocation recommendations will be added as an element of reporting through the Visas Viper channel. We will be reiterating our guidance on use of the broad discretionary authority of visa officers to deny visas on security and other grounds. Instruction in appropriate use of this authority has been a fundamental part of officer training for several years.
The State Department has broad and flexible authority to revoke visas and we use that authority widely to protect our borders. Since 2001, we have revoked 51,000 visas for a variety of reasons, including over 1,700 for suspected links to terrorism. We have been actively using this authority as we perform internal scrubs of our data with watchlist information provided by partner agencies. For example, we are re-examining information in our CLASS database on individuals with potential connections to terrorist activity or support for such activity. . . We recognize the gravity of the threat we face and are working intensely with our colleagues from other agencies to ensure that when the U.S. Government obtains information that a person may pose a threat to our security, that person does not hold a visa.
We will use revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Governments interest in the individual and ended our colleagues ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists plans and co-conspirators.
But, apparently, even after all the publicity that Umar had been assisted onto the flight, the Anwar al-Awlaki operation in Yemen stayed open for business, as we found out later with the AP embroglio over the wire service's report published in March that the Yemen AQ bomb-making cell had been penetrated by the CIA and Saudi intelligence double-agents. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184274166/leaks-bombs-and-double-agents-more-on-that-ap-story The droning of al-Awlaki and several other highly visible AQ figures appeared to have put an end to this sort of attract and trap operation involving CIA double-agents.
The Boston Bombing in April, nevertheless, is yet another instance where we are told that information about a designated terrorist let into the U.S. wasn't shared or fell through the cracks -- even though Tamarlan Tsarnaev was originally nominated as a terrorist by the CIA, and his name (with alternative spellings) appeared on three watch lists before he traveled and returned through US customs following his adventure in Russia and Chechnya -- yet, again, nothing was done to even monitor him and prevent another attack.
Nothing has changed, and this is just sickening.
millennialmax
(331 posts)Between some son and his mom discussing the weather or someone ordering a pizza. Something to prove that all calls are recorded of their content and sit on a database.
You'd think there'd be at least one e-mail in those 20,000 files of someone talking to a cousin on the other side of the world about their sick dog.
Something to prove everything is collected and recorded, no matter the topic of conversation.
20,000 files. Lots of exposing our security to foreign enemies. But nothing of substance for those of us on the home front.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Egnever
(21,506 posts)With the all seeing eye supposedly tracking our every movement. Where are all the people that have been targeted?
Surely they should be able to point to someone that has been spied upon and is being persecuted because of it.....
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Never a dissapointment.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Okay. Good enough for me.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)You're not supposed to see any evidence of it.
If they actually are spying on American citizens, do you really believe the president of the US is going to come right out and admit it?
If they are spying on you, you won't know it. If they aren't you still won't know it. Either way, they aren't going to tell you.
Silent3
(15,337 posts)...or hear because the less you hear about spying, the better job the spies must be doing.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Thanks for taking such a huge load off of my mind.
sagat
(241 posts)because there isn't any.
niyad
(113,614 posts)Response to ProSense (Original post)
damnedifIknow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(297,800 posts)Good". So, isn't there some "spying" going on in there someplace? Or are they all full of shit.
Thanks ProSense for the links. Of course it makes no difference to those entrenched in crapping all over PBO's USA but Putin's Russia is a haven for those who believe in Freedoms.
Making a stupid cartoon showing Pres Obama taking home his bear.. but, I believe many many Amrericans see it differently. Snowden isn't the fuck end all of why Putin's ass was canceled..
"We're not in the business of doing summits just to do summits," the official told CNN."
Despite canceling the Moscow talks with Putin, the White House said a meeting set for Friday between Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel with their Russian counterparts would proceed "to discuss how we can best make progress moving forward on the full range of issues in our bilateral relationship."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/politics/obama-putin/
snip//
"President Barack Obama said Tuesday he has no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.
Speaking to Tonight Show host Jay Leno, the president was asked by the host about recent legislation in Russia that cracks down on gay rights.
Do you think it will affect the Olympics? Leno asked the President, whose own views on the subject have evolved in the course of his presidency. Russia is slated to host the Winter Olympics in 2014, in the city of Sochi.
Obama was adamant. Every judgment should be made on the track, or in the swimming pool, or on the balance beam, and peoples sexual orientation shouldnt have anything to do with it.
He also noted Russias eagerness for a successful Olympic games, saying "I think they understand that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn't tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/07/president-obama-no-patience-for-anti-lgbt-laws-in-russia/
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)what the rest of the world has now seen, for the first time, documentary evidence of it, and first-hand accounts by many insiders.
Not to mention we a U.S. senator telling us that it is WORSE than what the totalitarians are telling us.
You partisans will be the death of us.
and so it goes...
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, Obama & Co. can stop making ridiculous CYA statements that tell us that being spied on is good for us.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)security, plus it's not even true anyway, plus his girlfriend was a poll dancer, plus Ed Snowden is a doodyhead.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)Getting their knickers in a knot over nothing at all! If only they'd talk to ProSense, they could all calm down . . .
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Nice image though.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)During the same week we find out that the DEA gets the information and forwards it to other agencies, and then directs them to cover where they got it.
The data is collected on everyone. Then, it is up to humans to decide what data is searched for, which is the problem. DEA agents aren't constitutional scholars. They are promoted/hired/fired based on performance, and this is low hanging fruit.
You know that MASSIVE data center in Utah that is about to open? The one that can potentially hold exabytes of data? What do you suppose that is for?
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Wasn't the (elected) congress "concerned" about something?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I'm sure you've seen evidence of that.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)lame
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)...a park.
But some are going to call it "spying" because some idiot said it was...
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)wall in a public place... like a park.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)...connects to, what level of file based incription they're using, if they're spoofing on a white supremacist web site...
All public
Someone looks at another person reading a book in a library is NOT spying...
at some point this crap get rediculous,
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)a wall in a public place... like a park.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)...people down own phone pbx's (if they're still used) just like people don't own hallways of private buildings they walk into.
Now, they do own the privacy in a bathroom stall for instance (the content of phone calls \ emails) because there's a reasonable expectation of privacy then.
The second I see PROOF (not what some stupid basher pundint says) that they're looking into the stalls or phone calls or emails then it's time to say enough.
People are in arms for very little
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Web browsing history is like bathroom stalls. Right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's not even remotely an expectation of privacy in what web sites you visit. That information is sent unencrypted (even if the web traffic itself is encrypted) through dozens and sometimes hundreds of third parties' networks.
If you have been using the web unaware of that, consider this a valuable lesson.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Or to capture it in transit.
That's why routers (and traffic logs) on the public internet are locked down and have passwords.
If it were public info like you suggest then there would be a public login where anybody could log in and view traffic logs.
In fact if any employee at service provider were to copy such logs and publish them publicly, he would be fired immediately.
This information is far from public.
Some people who work in the infrastructure have access to it. Others would be accessing it illegally.
Just like some people who work at the bank have access to your transaction info.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I look at my routers' logs all the time, and since I run BGP and peer with my upstreams I get a lot of traffic between the two.
Your guess about what would happen if somebody published the info is wrong; MRTG reports are frequently made public.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)MRTG is SNMP right?
1) You can't access a device that way unless you have a password.
2) You're probably talking about summary information, not full logs.
Your router logs are your own, but if you are providing transit service for IP packets(which you probably do not), and you make your traffic logs public information, you won't be providing transit for much longer. Nobody would do business with you.
You could choose to publicly publish it, assuming you have no contractual obligation with your customers or peers not to do so. That would be like a bank choosing to publish all their customers' bank transactions if they had no contractual obligation not to do so.
Let's take phone numbers as a good example.
You would claim there is no expectation of privacy for people's phone call logs.
Yet everyone would be angry if their phone company publicly published their call logs.
That anger, that right there, is the thing that clues us in to whether people expect privacy in their phone call logs.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The routing of Internet and telephony data is done by other people, in cleartext, and you have no reason to think, ever, that they are obliged to keep it secret.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)According to everything that Greenwald and Snowden have released so far, there is no email or website collection on US persons without a warrant.
Phonecall metadata is being collected, but under current law that doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the phone companies. Can't really claim it's a violation of privacy when you don't own the data. Not to mention the phone companies have been selling that metadata for years.
There are email and website collection programs on non-US persons. But they have no Constitutional rights.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Despite the President's claim that it is legal, nothing authorizes it.
2) Metadata belongs to the phone companies. They can turn it over to the government if they want, and then I can switch phone companies. But what we have here is the government requiring the phone companies to give up all records.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's specific warrants that cover each phone company, and requires those companies to turn over the metadata they have collected.
That would be the specific warrants, yes.
Ok, and where's the evidence of such warrantless collection? Even the documents discussing the "within-three-hops" gathering discuss protections to prevent gathering on US persons.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)are illegal and unconstitutional.
The leaked FISA warrant we saw for Verizon, for example, is an illegal and unconstitutional warrant.
See also http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.htm
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The data doesn't belong to those people. It's the phone company's business records, according to the SCOTUS. And I really don't think you want to head down the road of letting giant corporations hide their business records.
And your link leads to "page not found". But I presume it will be another person claiming the data belongs to those millions of people, when it doesn't.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Unless you are joking.
Silent3
(15,337 posts)Even if there weren't an Edward Snowden or any NSA revelations, that reasoning would mean a lack of evidence simply means the spies are doing an even better job of spying.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Doesn't mean they care about you or I. Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are still not out to get you.
on point
(2,506 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)AppleBottom
(201 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It also includes declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence, including secret government documents recently published in the Guardian and Washington Post that confirm our allegations. Two of the most critical documents directly reference the upstream collection of communications from fiber optic cables and the domestic telephone records collection program, which was subsequently confirmed by the government in June, 2013.
Links at link because I know how you lurve linkys
ProSense
(116,464 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)That you don't actually look at links others provide you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)it's not evidence of spying on Americans by the Obama administration. Evidently, you're unaware of what you posted.
The lawsuit is brought by five people. The plaintiffs are ordinary Americans who all use AT&T as their communications provider, some for phone, some for internet. They bring some of their claims as individuals and others on behalf of all AT&T customers.
Who is being sued?
The lawsuit is against the United States Government itself, a number of government agencies, as well as a number of current and former agency officials who participated in or ordered the illegal surveillance. The claims on behalf of all AT&T customers seek a declaration that the surveillance is illegal and an injunction to stop it, while the individual plaintiffs also seek damages against all the defendants (except for the President, who the courts have ruled has absolute immunity against civil damages claims). The specific defendants are the United States, the National Security Agency, the Department of Justice, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and John D. Ashcroft, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, and former DNI John Negroponte.
<...>
Why didn't you sue the government until 2008?
In 2006, suing AT&T looked like the fastest way to halt the illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Congress interfered with the judicial process in our case by granting immunity to telecoms that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. In response, we are opening up a new front in this battle. Our top priority is to stop the ongoing illegal surveillance as soon as possible, and to hold those responsible for the program to account
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/faq
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Funny that there are more cases. Yes, Jewel is over shrimpy's program, but there's another case over more recent actions of this administration.
At the heart of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA is the bulk telephone records collection program that was confirmed by the publication of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in June of 2013. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) further confirmed that this formerly secret document was authentic, and part of a broader program to collect all major telecommunications customers call history. The order demands wholesale collection of every call made, the location of the phone, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other identifying information for every phone and call for all customers of Verizon for a period of three months. Government officials further confirmed that this was just one of series of orders issued on a rolling basis since at least 2006. First Unitarian v. NSA argues that this spying violates the First Amendment, which protects the freedom to associate and express political views as a group.
Essentially this suit is against the same practices that date to Jewel, which recently was allowed to proceed because of Snowden's disclosures.
The timing of your reply to me above is interesting.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You posted different link to about a first amendment challenge to the collection of metadata.
<...>
How does this case compare to Jewel v. NSA?
This case is a companion case to our long pending one, Jewel v. NSA, where the courtin July 2013rejected the governments claim of state secrets privilege. The Jewel case also addresses the phone records collection, but on behalf of individual AT&T customers in a class action. It also includes the claims of direct access by the NSA to the Internet content and records of our communications carried on the fiberoptic cables of AT&T. Those were first revealed by Mark Klein and recently confirmed in the secret NSA slides released by the Guardian and the Washington Post.
Why such strange bedfellows?
The First Amendment especially is designed to protect people in their associations without regard to what those associations are doing, so its not surprising that groups from across the political spectrum and whose focus is on a range of issues, some of which may conflict, all agree on the need for the protections of the First Amendment against government access to the records of who they associate with, when, for how long and at what frequency.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)linking to the EFF timeline?
That's not evidence there has been domestic spying by this administration. That's a collection of all the things I alluded to in the OP.
In fact, the closest thing to any violation is this from July 2012.
Jul 20
The Director of National Intelligence, who oversees the nation's intelligence agencies, admits in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden that on "at least one occasion" the FISA court found that minimization procedures used by the government while conducting surveillance under FISA was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Greenwald's own report indicated that the minimization procedures were strict.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)for it to be what Greenwald and Snowden are claiming.
Yeah, it's not like San Francisco has a fiberoptic cable running off into the Pacific or anything. So clearly all communications there would be domestic, right?
Oh wait....
Yet even with that mountain, they still didn't manage to produce a document showing spying on US persons.
Because all fiberoptic cables run entirely within the US.
Oh wait....
Not our data. It isn't an invasion of your privacy when you don't own the data. And when the people who do own that data got your permission to sell it years ago, and have been selling it. You did read all that fine print from your phone company, right?
Again, there's people making claims, and there's a mountain of evidence of spying on non-US persons. The problem is the claims are of spying on US persons. And there hasn't been anything leaked to document that.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)One targeted the communications and the other the metadata. Both continued into the current administration with (I'm assuming) enhancements and the blessing of Congress and retro active immunity to the phone companies.
That aside, they indeed do have evidence, page 9 is interesting.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The problem is only 1 collected information related to US persons - the metadata program. And again, not our information under current law, so we don't get to restrict it.
All the other programs collected on non-US persons. Page 9 says the same thing. You'll note they were careful to include "information from telephone switches" with "Internet communications".
"information from telephone switches" is the metadata program.
Again, there's a mountain of evidence of spying on non-US persons. There a mountain of claims about spying on US persons. There's zero documents showing spying on US persons. If the EFF finds some through discovery, great - there will finally be something backing up those claims.
markiv
(1,489 posts)so i'm confident as well
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Post removed
bowens43
(16,064 posts)This isn't Obama's first lie, he's quite accomplished.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)spying that didn't, actually, happen?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Uh, Why would the DEA have to perform "parallel construction" (read: Lie in court) to cover up spying that didn't, actually, happen?"
...original story was inaccurate hype. See the correction at the end of the piece:
Here is the correction in the text:
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And if the evidence was legitimately obtained, they wouldn't need to do that- especially because if it comes to light, it jeopardizes the entire case.
There's just no way to polish this turd. Sorry.
FWIW, I don't blame Obama for this OR the Drug War, although first thing he needs to do is tell his AG to stop sending SWAT Teams into Medical Marijuana states to arrest and harass sick people.
But those of us who've been saying for YEARS that the entire "War On Terror" was going to translate into a blank check for LEOs to do what they've wanted to do since forever- namely, subvert the "pesky" aspects of the constitution- have been proven right.
Again.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/
At this point, there are a lot more questions than answers about what Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Hanni Fakhoury has dubbed the DEAs intelligence laundering operation. Here are three big ones: How far does all this go? Where does it stop?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/07/nsa-data-was-supposed-to-make-the-deas-job-easier-instead-it-makes-prosecutors-jobs-harder/
http://americablog.com/2013/08/dea-using-nsa-data-then-lying-about-it.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The SOD is not evidence that the NSA is spying on Americans.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There's nothing in the WaPo "correction" that says that, either. Saying there's no evidence that it has anything to do with the specific stuff Snowden has revealed is not the same as saying "it has nothing to do with the NSA".
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That's absurd. It obviously has to do with the NSA."
...it doesn't.
By John Shiffman
WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 5, 2013 5:16am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former spy-agency contractor Edward Snowden has caused a fierce debate over civil liberties and national-security needs by disclosing details of secret U.S. government surveillance programs.
Reuters has uncovered previously unreported details about a separate program, run by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, that extends well beyond intelligence gathering. Its use, legal experts say, raises fundamental questions about whether the government is concealing information used to investigate and help build criminal cases against American citizens.
The DEA program is run by a secretive unit called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Here is how NSA efforts exposed by Snowden differ from the activities of the SOD:
Purpose of the programs
NSA: To use electronic surveillance to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation catch terrorists, the U.S. military fight wars, and the Central Intelligence Agency collect intelligence about foreign governments.
SOD: To help the DEA and other law enforcement agents launch criminal investigations of drug dealers, money launderers and other common criminals, including Americans. The unit also handles global narco-terrorism cases.
- more -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-nsa-idUSBRE9740AI20130805
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)How you get "doesn't have anything to do with the NSA" from that, is completely beyond me.
otohara
(24,135 posts)for posting on DU.
I'm more worried about the Disability Police in Tea Land deeming me not
disabled enough and getting shot by some asshole with a gun.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Gives permission for (the secret back door)... to conduct searches on law abiding citizens....
I'm the secret "back door man"... (civilian's don't know it but the spooks understand!)
While you're surfing... I'm making my midnight "peep"... Yup!
The lawyers don't know, but the secret judges understand...
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The NSA finds out something illegally, they tell the FBI, the FBI finds a way to legally find out the information they already know.
"Acting on an anonymous tip...", etc.
Turbineguy
(37,374 posts)you'll get bannished.
Bannished, bannished bannished! I'm getting a new tucker-inner!
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)If GSHQ in the UK, and doubtless others too, do the work on behalf of the NSA then technically the NSA have not done the spying.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)A thorough debunking of my claim: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023447813
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)I think that may be semantics. I don't believe anybody really know what's going on here.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)unblock
(52,386 posts)our entire constitution and bill of rights is based on trusting the government to do the right thing, after all, right?
right?
liberal N proud
(60,347 posts)Wouldn't you?
But as of yet, there has been nothing from him proving it.
Only those who are absolutely certain in their minds that this must be true.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)There are four NSA whistle blowers and now a White House aide that claim there is inappropriate spying. You are free to reject that as evidence.
However, it is not a crime to make up a bunch of lies about the government, even if you had top security clearance. If everything Snowden is saying is a lie, he is merely engaging in the writing of fiction, which is not at all chargeable as spying. Nor is it civilly actionable as defamation because you cannot defame the government. You can infer from the complete freak out from D.C. powers that be that Snowden isn't merely some ex-NSA employee now writing fiction. Ian Flemming was not hunted by MI6 because he was writing fiction. Official D.C. is freaking out because Snowden is outing them, and by the way the less famous whistleblowers who didn't flee the country largely confirm it. Welcome to the United Stasi of America. But at least it protects us from terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing. Not.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Neither have I.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Because if ANY illegality could be linked to the President, then HE (to hell with Pere Snowden's claim) would be "under the White House" faster than you could say 'Paul Revere'.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Lancero
(3,015 posts)"I still haven't seen any evidence of Obama having a Birth Certificate"
You could be waving it right under their face, and they will still dismiss it as a fake, all the while saying that the Hawaiian newspaper that announced his birth was apart of a multi-decade conspiracy to put a black muslim socialist into power.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)pretty straightforward.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)a valid one, i think
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Good to know.
markiv
(1,489 posts)i think that pic says it all
so what's your story, should you care to share? an intern for the party, or web site?
David Krout
(423 posts)With your assessment.