1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Church: Obama, NSA, Verizon

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Jun 5, 2013.

  1. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,561
    Likes Received:
    6,280
    Ruminations on the FISA Court and the Bush Administration’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program”
    Orin Kerr • June 7, 2013 12:40 am

    [This post is sheer speculation; I may be way off. Read accordingly.] Longtime readers will recall the dispute in 2005-2006 over the legality of the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, aka the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” which was revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times. Recall that several DOJ officials threatened to resign over the program as unlawful in 2004, but then changes to the program were made to satisfy them that the program was lawful. As best I can recall — it has been a few years — the leading theory for what changes were made to make the program legal was that program was changed to be based on the AUMF instead of the President’s Article II power. I thought of that dispute when I read this passage in today’s Post story on PRISM:

    Between 2004 and 2007, Bush administration lawyers persuaded federal FISA judges to issue surveillance orders in a fundamentally new form. Until then the government had to show probable cause that a particular “target” and “facility” were both connected to terrorism or espionage.

    In four new orders, which remain classified, the court defined massive data sets as “facilities” and agreed to certify periodically that the government had reasonable procedures in place to minimize collection of “U.S. persons” data without a warrant.

    I’m probably way off on this, but I wonder: Is that what changed and allowed the TSP to continue? The timing would be right, as the changes from Goldsmith/Comey et. al. started in 2004 and the Protect America Act came around to formally approve the TSP program (at least in some form) in 2007. And recall yesterday’s post on the NSA call records program, and in particular the legal ambiguity that led to FISA court orders allowing it:

    Section 1861 says that the “things” that are collected must be relevant to a national security investigation or threat assessment, but it says nothing about the scope of the things obtained. When dealing with a physical object, we naturally treat relevance on an object-by-object basis. Sets of records are different. If Verizon has a database containing records of billions of phone calls made by millions of customers, is that database a single thing, millions of things, or billions of things? Is relevance measured by each record, each customer, or the relevance of the entire database as a whole? If the entire massive database has a single record that is relevant, does that make the entire database relevant, too? The statute doesn’t directly answer that, it seems to me. But certainly it’s surprising — and troubling — if the Section 1861 relevance standard is being interpreted at the database-by-database level.

    Maybe I’m just misreading the two paragraphs from today’s Post story, but it sounds like there was a similarly broad reinterpretation of FISA in 2004. By reading a massive data set as a “facility,” the government could get FISA court orders allowing massive-scale surveillance from the 2004-07 period.

    Did that authorize the TSP, at least formally? Maybe. Although maybe I’m way off. Think about it: If that authorized the TSP, it would mean that the Bush Administration’s TSP actually did have a warrant — it’s just that it was a single warrant for the entire program. It seems hard to believe that the Bush Administration wouldn’t have let on about that if there were such an order from the FISA court. But then the order was and still is classified, so I suppose it’s possible that they didn’t acknowledge the existence of the warrant even though it existed.

    Anyway, just some uninformed speculation on my part. I’m curious what readers think.
     
  2. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,561
    Likes Received:
    6,280
    [​IMG]
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,561
    Likes Received:
    6,280
    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>It's gone from "we are the ones we've been waiting for" to "we are the ones we were warning you about."</p>&mdash; Ben Howe (@BenHowe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenHowe/status/342985624774668289">June 7, 2013</a></blockquote>
    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
     
  4. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,561
    Likes Received:
    6,280
    WaPost backtracks on claim tech companies ‘participate knowingly’ in PRISM data collection

    [rquoter]The Washington Post published an investigative report uncovering the government-run PRISM program, which allegedly monitored US citizen’s Internet activity illegally, but now the paper is stepping away from its initial claim that nine tech firms knowingly provided data to the government.

    Early reports of PRISM left two key allegations unanswered: Did the US government illegally monitor its citizens online, and did the tech companies involved work with authorities complicity. Predictably the government denied the first question. For the second, the initial answer seemed to be yes.

    The Post previously claimed that Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple ”participate knowingly”. The phrase that stood out in the report (it has been repurposed by numerous tech blogs and news sites across the Web) since it suggested that US firms willingly agreed to a process that — at best — could violate the rights of millions in the US if their data is accidentally monitored by the NSA.

    Hours after the news broke, and every company bar PalTalk and AOL denied any knowledge of the program and allegations of their involvement, the Post has changed its stance. The phrase ”participate knowingly” has been removed from the article, a new passage suggests the firms were unaware of PRISM:

    It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.

    This new text, added to the denials from Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and others, suggests that the NSA did not have direct access to the data systems. That initial suggestion was an assumption that the Post made based on the contents of the leaked slides.

    Nonetheless, the paper’s new stance is a huge admission. For one thing, it adds to the growing claim that the agency instead accessed the information indirectly. In such a case, the most likely method would be via ISPs or mobile operators, but that remains unconfirmed.

    Coming hot on the heels of another leak, showing that the NSA collected phone records belonging to Verizon customers, it would cast US service providers in a very poor light.

    The move is an embarrassing one for the Post, particularly given that its new update appears driven by the responses of the companies, the very same companies that it says it got responses from before publishing its story.

    The Post story says that “several companies [that it] contacted” denied knowledge of the program, and “asserted that they responded only to targeted requests for information”, but it cites only quotes from Google and Facebook.

    TNW, like other media, received responses from seven companies, each of which was quick to respond after the initial reports went live. If the Post’s update is driven by the companies, questions must asked as to why it made the direct accusation against the companies in the first place.[/rquoter]

    http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07...ection/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
     
  5. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Can anyone imagine the tar and feathering Obama would be receiving if he discontinued these programs and we had another attack on the country and it was found out that the attack could have been avoided if these policies were in place?

    You freaks would be screaming for Obama’s head.
     
  6. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,741
    Likes Received:
    17,383
    They certainly would be. If he were to stop the programs now and there were another attack they would be screaming for his head.

    That doesn't mean Obama should continue the programs though. Obtaining phone records from thousands of innocent American citizens with no evidence that they're doing anything wrong is an idea that has no place in this country.
     
  7. bobmarley

    bobmarley Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    318
  8. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Ah, the sam shtick, phase 2: Reach back into bbs memory and try desperately to shift the topic away from your weak and faulty argument to some vague assertion of posting hypocrisy. In this case it's extra silly as the comparison is illegitimate and your memory is lousy.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. bobmarley

    bobmarley Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    318
    NSA Has Been Sharing PRISM Data With UK Since At Least 2010

    [​IMG]

    Via Guardian:

     
  10. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Poor Bobby

    today's Wall Street Journal

    Thank You for Data-Mining

    The NSA's 'metadata' surveillance is legal and necessary.

    The liberals who spent the Bush years warning about a knock on the door at least have the virtue of consistency, if not the Republicans who are now depicting the NSA program as some J. Edgar Hoover-Bill Moyers operation to target domestic enemies. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has already introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013. Yet surveillance is more critical than ever to stopping terror attacks now that Mr. Obama has all but abolished extended interrogation and military detention and invited Congress to limit drone strikes.
     
  11. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,561
    Likes Received:
    6,280
    Jim Sensenbrenner: NSA violated law

    [rquoter]Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Republican author of the Patriot Act, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that says he is “extremely disturbed” by reports that the National Security Agency collected phone records from Verizon customers and insists it violates the law.
    “These reports are deeply concerning and raise questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure,” the Wisconsin Republican said in the letter, sent Thursday.

    Sensenbrenner, who chaired the Judiciary Committee, cited testimony from the Department of Justice from 2011, in which an assistant attorney general said they obtain so-called business records fewer than 40 times each year.
    (PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)
    “I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirement of the Patriot Act,” Sensenbrenner wrote. “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?”
    [/rquoter]

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa-violated-law-92348.html#ixzz2VY4bzLBu
     
  12. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
  13. bobmarley

    bobmarley Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    318
    MORE IN OPINION...

    Right at the top of the page.

    This person might want to do some more research.

    If it's so necessary, please tell why they didn't know about the Boston bombing and why they pushed the YouTube video narrative in Benghazi.

    [​IMG]

    Yup, pretty much.

    [​IMG]

    Since when do we have 100% security? The Boston Bombers being a good example of what this should have stopped if it really did keep us safe.
     
    #94 bobmarley, Jun 7, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2013
  14. bobmarley

    bobmarley Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    318
    Obama: “I’m Going To Take One Question… I Don’t Want The Whole Day To Just Be A Bleeding Press Conference”…

    It’s almost like he’s avoiding questions on the flood of scandals he’s dealing with.

    Via TWS:

     
  15. bobmarley

    bobmarley Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    318
    “F” In FISA Means Foreign

    [​IMG]

    At one point in his somewhat disjointed justification, President Obama, in his remarks, said that this data mining was not applied to Americans, that it’s about foreign intelligence, it’s not spying on Americans.

    “F” in FISA means foreign, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You can read a copy of the act here. The purpose of the act is to gather information on foreign terrorists, the purpose was never meant to target or gather information on Americans, particularly if they had no association with terrorists.

    The purpose of the National Security Agency(NSA) is also not to be spying on Americans. Their mission as set forth in Executive Order 12333 :

    So how do we get then to the “secret” “Foreign Surveillance Court” authorizing a massive dragnet of data of domestic phone calls to give to the NSA, who isn’t supposed to be collecting it to be begin with, according to its mission?

    Anyone can appreciate the need to go after foreign terrorists, even that some information might cross over to some Americans who might be in league with foreign terrorists.

    Yet the order that allowed this massive NSA grab didn’t even give that as a justification, the order says the following:

    Note, no requirement that there be any terrorist connection at all, no requirement that it even originate from overseas, just grabbing data of all local calls.

    How is that foreign?

    President Obama, in his remarks, was almost dismissive, saying snidely, “No one is listening in on your calls”, clearly disturbed that he would even have to justify this, raising a “strawman” that had never been raised.

    But it isn’t foreign, isn’t terrorist connected (according to the order) despite what you said.

    So pray tell, sir, what is your justification? And how might one trust what you have to say on this matter?

    How do you justify going after server information and credit card information?

    A “court order” would be needed to get more info beyond the metadata? Oh you mean, like the warrant your administration got when Eric Holder lied about James Rosen? Right, no issue, no problem here.

    As we reported earlier, Jim Sensenbrenner, who helped write the Patriot Act said this is not in accordance with the act. Rand Paul calls it an all out assault on the Constitution.

    The “don’t worry, trust us” excuse doesn’t work anymore, Mr. President…
     
  16. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,821
    Likes Received:
    36,301
    Vague assertion? Still waiting for your response:



    http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7961860&postcount=124

    Reaching all the way back to: 2 weeks ago! Guess the outrage Orwell greenwald machine has limited RAM
     
  17. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    It's right here. Posted before you decided to use one of your other overused bbs tactics: "SamFisher: BBS Lawyer". It's a roundhouse kick of boring, and I ignored it as I had already mea culpa'd when more of the facts came to light - up to a point anyway.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Amiga

    Amiga 10 years ago...
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,769
    Likes Received:
    18,565
    Again, this is nothing new.

    The good news here is --- RIGHT ??? --- both the left and the right think this is wrong. So, it should be very simple to pass new legislation to limit the power of the government to look at everything. Right?

    I suspect that is not the case. At present, a larger majority want this power to stay as is than to limit it. Safety over security.

    One day it will tilt back and the power will be limited. Not now. Be truthful to yourself.
     
  19. tallanvor

    tallanvor Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    8,684
    Democratic Senator says Obama is lying about briefing Congress on PRISM

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/obama-nsa-response/66015/

    <object id="msnbc294751" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" width="420" height="245">




    <embed name="msnbc294751" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" flashvars="launch=52133553^189654^436451&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" width="420" height="245"></object>
    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now