-
Legal Challenges to the NSA programs
Good! Let’s get some of this exposed to some daylight and reset the relative importance of privacy.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/nsa-phone-program-probably-unconstitutional-judge-rules.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/nsa-phone-program-probably-unconstitutional-judge-rules.html[/link]
[b]NSA Phone Program Probably Unconstitutional, Judge Rules[/b]
The [link=http://www.nsa.gov/]National Security Agencys[/link] program of collecting telephone metadata is probably illegal, a federal judge ruled, allowing a lawsuit claiming it violates the U.S. Constitution to go forward.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/washington/]Washington[/link] said the plaintiffs claim that their right to privacy outweighs the governments need for collecting and analyzing the data will probably prevail in a trial.
Leon granted a temporary injunction blocking the government from collecting that information from the Verizon Wireless accounts of plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange and requiring the U.S. to destroy any such data in its possession.
In light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal, Leon said in his 68-page ruling.
The decision by Leon is the first to enable a challenge to the NSAs program. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews government requests for permission to engage in electronic surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists who may be communicating with U.S. citizens, has previously said such actions are constitutional.
Leon ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the government exceeded its jurisdiction under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Still, he decided he could consider the constitutional merits of the plaintiffs claims.
The case is Klayman v. Obama, 13-cv-881, U.S. District Court, [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/district-of-columbia/]District of Columbia[/link] (Washington). -
46 Replies
-
I know it sounds counter intuitive but the more vast metadata they collect the more our privacy is protected as they simply can’t even begin to process it. You realize the private industries who are using such data and collecting such data are far more intrusive into your private life than the NSA. But I agree there is no reason this can’t be out in the open
-
Quote from Thor
I know it sounds counter intuitive but the more vast metadata they collect the more our privacy is protected as they simply can’t even begin to process it. You realize the private industries who are using such data and collecting such data are far more intrusive into your private life than the NSA. But I agree there is no reason this can’t be out in the open
however, you agree to terms of service when you use Gmail or other services that are snooping data so to speak. No one ever agreed that the NSA can just collect your data. With Gmail I believe that works by skimming the content of emails to provide ads to you. The whole point of them collecting the data is for it to be used in homeland security, so I’d be kind of surpised to if they didn’t have someway data mining whatever they are looking. If they couldn’t process it they wouldn’t need to collect it, and would just be wasteful.
-
I still don’t quite get all the controversy. No one has produced a single iota of evidence that the data collected by NSA is being used to violate any of our Constitutional rights or for any devious means that’s not in the best interest of the USA. No one has been persecuted because of their anti-government beliefs. No one has had their front door knocked on by the Pre-Crime police asking what’s up with this or that phone call.
And the idea that the NSA should be clamped down after saying [i]”We’ve had the ability to read everyone’s email for many years”[/i] is just absurd. Every police officer that carries a gun, or every physician that can prescribe any drug, or any surgeon with a scalpel can say [i]”For many years we’ve had the [u]ability[/u] to kill any random citizen”,[/i] but that doesn’t mean they DO that, and is not a reason to deprive them of the tools of their trade that makes them effective at what they do.As I understand the Constitution, we are guaranteed privacy on our own property. Period. Anything that leaves our property is fair game, like phone calls and emails through wire or the airwaves, shouting across the street to our neighbor, driving to another location, etc. If someone wants to listen in to our conversation or follow us to our location in a non-threatening way, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects our privacy to any of that.
-
Plaintiff is quite an interesting character BTW
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/larry-klayman-nsa-lawsuit-justice-department]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/larry-klayman-nsa-lawsuit-justice-department[/link]-
not specifically about NSA but an interesting story about government. there’s a lawsuit about no fly list and how the government put a witness on the no fly list for no apparent reason other than to keep her from testifying. From techdirt.com
[b]ttp://tinyurl.com/oxdsdnf[/b]-
As I understand the Constitution, we are guaranteed privacy on our own property. Period. Anything that leaves our property is fair game, like phone calls and emails through wire or the airwaves, shouting across the street to our neighbor, driving to another location, etc
That is a very broad statement….. and also incorrect.
There are a number of rulings that place strict limitiations on surveillance and monitoring regardless of whether a person is on his/her property or not.
The FISA rulings explicitly state that [size=”3″][size=”2″]that the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless surveillance in intelligence [/size][/size]
[size=”2″] investigations of domestic security threats.
[/size]
[size=”3″] [size=”2″]The government was required to include in its application to the FISA Court “specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain[ed] [was] a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”[/size]
[size=”3″][/size]
[size=”3″][/size]
[size=”2″]While The Patriot Act definitely served to increase the government’s ability to surveil, that is not without limit.[/size]
[size=”3″][/size]
[size=”3″][size=”3″][/size][/size]
[size=”3″][size=”3″][/size][/size][size=”2″]Berger v. New York is probably the base precedent for wiretapping. Even though it is from an much earlier era the 4th Ammendment principles still apply.[/size]
[size=”3″][/size]
[size=”3″][size=”3”][/size][/size]
[/size]In Berger v. New York, the Court confirmed the obsolesence of the alternative holding in Olmstead that conversations could not be seized in the Fourth Amendment sense.[u][color=”#0000ff”] [/color][/u]Berger held unconstitutional on its face a state eavesdropping statute under which judges were authorized to issue warrants permitting police officers to trespass on private premises to install listening devices. The warrants were to be issued upon a showing of ”reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded.”
For the five-Justice majority, Justice Clark discerned several constitutional defects in the law. ”First, . . . eavesdropping is authorized without requiring belief that any particular offense has been or is being committed; nor that the ‘property’ sought, the conversations, be particularly described.
”The purpose of the probable-cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed is thereby wholly aborted. Likewise the statute’s failure to describe with particularity the conversations sought gives the officer a roving commission to ‘seize’ any and all conversations. It is true that the statute requires the naming of ‘the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded. . . .’ But this does no more than identify the person whose constitutionally protected area is to be invaded rather than ‘particularly describing’ the communications, conversations, or discussions to be seized. . .
Secondly, authorization of eavesdropping for a two-month period is the equivalent of a series of intrusions, searches, and seizures pursuant to a single showing of probable cause. Prompt execution is also avoided. During such a long and continuous (24 hours a day) period the conversations of any and all persons coming into the area covered by the device will be seized indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with the crime under investigation. Moreover, the statute permits. . . extensions of the original two-month period–presumably for two months each–on a mere showing that such extension is ‘in the public interest.’. . .
Third, the statute places no termination date on the eavesdrop once the conversation sought is seized. . . .
Finally, the statute’s procedure, necessarily because its success depends on secrecy, has no requirement for notice as do conventional warrants, nor does it overcome this defect by requiring some showing of special facts. On the contrary, it permits unconsented entry without any showing of exigent circumstances. Such a showing of exigency, in order to avoid notice, would appear more important in eavesdropping, with its inherent dangers, than that required when conventional procedures of search and seizure are utilized.
Nor does the statute provide for a return on the warrant thereby leaving full discretion in the officer as to the use of seized conversations of innocent as well as guilty parties. In short, the statute’s blanket grant of permission to eavesdrop is without adequate judicial supervision or protective procedures.”-
Quote from dergon
As I understand the Constitution, we are guaranteed privacy on our own property. Period. Anything that leaves our property is fair game, like phone calls and emails through wire or the airwaves, shouting across the street to our neighbor, driving to another location, etc
That is a very broad statement….. and also incorrect.
There are a number of rulings that place strict limitiations on surveillance and monitoring regardless of whether a person is on his/her property or not.
The FISA rulings explicitly state that [size=”3″][size=”2″]that the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless surveillance in intelligence [/size][/size]
[size=”2″] investigations of domestic security threats.
[/size]
[size=”3″] [size=”2″]The government was required to include in its application to the FISA Court “specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain[ed] [was] a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”[/size]
[size=”2″]While The Patriot Act definitely served to increase the government’s ability to surveil, that is not without limit.[/size]
[/size]
[size=”2″]Berger v. New York is probably the base precedent for wiretapping. Even though it is from an much earlier era the 4th Ammendment principles still apply.[/size][size=”0″] [/size][size=”3”]
[/size]In Berger v. New York, the Court confirmed the obsolesence of the alternative holding in Olmstead that conversations could not be seized in the Fourth Amendment sense.[u][color=”#0000ff”] [/color][/u]Berger held unconstitutional on its face a state eavesdropping statute under which judges were authorized to issue warrants permitting police officers to trespass on private premises to install listening devices. The warrants were to be issued upon a showing of ”reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded.”
For the five-Justice majority, Justice Clark discerned several constitutional defects in the law. ”First, . . . eavesdropping is authorized without requiring belief that any particular offense has been or is being committed; nor that the ‘property’ sought, the conversations, be particularly described.
”The purpose of the probable-cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed is thereby wholly aborted. Likewise the statute’s failure to describe with particularity the conversations sought gives the officer a roving commission to ‘seize’ any and all conversations. It is true that the statute requires the naming of ‘the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded. . . .’ But this does no more than identify the person whose constitutionally protected area is to be invaded rather than ‘particularly describing’ the communications, conversations, or discussions to be seized. . .Secondly, authorization of eavesdropping for a two-month period is the equivalent of a series of intrusions, searches, and seizures pursuant to a single showing of probable cause. Prompt execution is also avoided. During such a long and continuous (24 hours a day) period the conversations of any and all persons coming into the area covered by the device will be seized indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with the crime under investigation. Moreover, the statute permits. . . extensions of the original two-month period–presumably for two months each–on a mere showing that such extension is ‘in the public interest.’. . .
Third, the statute places no termination date on the eavesdrop once the conversation sought is seized. . . .
Finally, the statute’s procedure, necessarily because its success depends on secrecy, has no requirement for notice as do conventional warrants, nor does it overcome this defect by requiring some showing of special facts. On the contrary, it permits unconsented entry without any showing of exigent circumstances. Such a showing of exigency, in order to avoid notice, would appear more important in eavesdropping, with its inherent dangers, than that required when conventional procedures of search and seizure are utilized.
Nor does the statute provide for a return on the warrant thereby leaving full discretion in the officer as to the use of seized conversations of innocent as well as guilty parties. In short, the statute’s blanket grant of permission to eavesdrop is without adequate judicial supervision or protective procedures.”
I believe FISA only covers foreign communications that cross the USA border, not domestic communications.
This may be a subtle distinction for some, but the Fourth Amendment is about “equal protection”. It says you can’t target specific individuals without legal permission. That means you cannot wiretap a specific individual’s communication between the USA and another country without a FISA proceeding. However, scouring the airwaves indiscriminately does treat everyone “equally” and is not a violation of the Fourth. You keep all the archived data in your back pocket, and then if you have a need to investigate one or more communications at a later date, you then initiate a FISA proceeding. It’s a lot more effective than the requirement that you be there while the initial communication is happening. So if TODAY the feds find out they have a reason to watch Harvey, they can get court permission to go back to his records over the past few weeks and see if they can verify that he’s up to no good. It’s not against the law for me to have your Social Security number without permission, but it IS against the law for me to USE that number without permission.
Fourth Amendment protection is similar to the difference between profiling (illegal) and random (legal) searching on highways, at airports, etc. It’s also the reason people cannot prevent you from taking a picture in a public space that includes their image, especially if their presence happens to be a coincidence to the main subject of the photo. As I said, unless the surveillance is “threatening”, the law says it’s legal. It’s the difference between simply following someone (non-threatening) and stalking them (threatening). Targeted wiretapping, by definition, is threatening, but the broadband collection of random communication data is not threatening any more than what’s collected by a video camera that records 24/7 at busy intersections. But “just in case” there’s a need to look back at the data, you already have it, you just have to ask for legal permission to use it.
If you’re walking down a public sidewalk and you hear a guy inside his house shout to someone else on that property “I killed that guy!”, it is perfectly legal for you to convey the overheard conversation in a court of law as submittable testimony against that guy.
As I recall, the court gave the Bush administration approval to park a van on the street and listen in to what’s coming out of the walls of your own home. That’s not “wiretapping” but it is eavesdropping, and it’s legal as long as it doesn’t occur on your property.
-
the FISA court ruling was that the NSA can collect data as long as it’s related to known or unknown terrorists. That’s from the Patriot Act. Time to make amendments to the constitution that apply to the digital age.
-
I am not very sophisticated about these matters, but why wouldn’t a prospective terrorist simply use a Tor browser bundle?
-
I believe that was actually one of the things that triggers the special attention on your self. There might have been speculation out there that the NSA compromised the Tor network too.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A quiet X-mas dump from the NSA
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-24/spy-agency-to-release-reports-documenting-surveillance-errors.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/…ance-errors.html [/link][b]U.S. Spy Agency Reports Improper Surveillance of Americans[/b]
The National Security Agency today released reports on intelligence collection that may have violated the law or U.S. policy over more than a decade, including unauthorized surveillance of Americans overseas communications.
The NSA, responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from the [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/american-civil-liberties-union/]American Civil Liberties Union[/link], released a series of required quarterly and annual[link=https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/IntelligenceOversightBoard.shtml] reports[/link] to the Presidents Intelligence Oversight Board that cover the period from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2013.
The heavily-redacted reports include examples of data on Americans being e-mailed to unauthorized recipients, stored in unsecured computers and retained after it was supposed to be destroyed, according to the documents. They were posted on the NSAs website at around 1:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
In a 2012 case, for example, an NSA analyst searched her spouses personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting, according to [link=https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/IOB/FY2012_1Q_IOB_Report.pdf]one report[/link]. The analyst has been advised to cease her activities, it said.
The ACLU, which filed a lawsuit to access the reports, said the documents shed light on how the surveillance policies of NSA impact Americans and how information has sometimes been misused.
The government conducts sweeping surveillance under this authority – surveillance that increasingly puts Americans data in the hands of the NSA, Patrick C. Toomey, staff attorney with the ACLUs National Security Project, said in an e-mail.
Despite that fact, this spying is conducted almost entirely in secret and without legislative or judicial oversight, he said.
The reports show greater oversight by all three branches of government is needed, Toomey added.
-
-
The New York Times and The Guardian issue a joint set of editorials supporting clemency for Edward Snowden.
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/edward-snowden-clemency_n_4529563.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/edward-snowden-clemency_n_4529563.html[/link]
Edward Snowden Clemency: The New York Times, The Guardian Urge Obama To Help NSA Whistleblower[/h1]Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.
When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government.
-
please Let Russia keep him
-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feinstein-cia-searched-intelligence-committee-computers/2014/03/11/982cbc2c-a923-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…e7295b6851c_story.html[/link]
Diane Feinstein accuses the CIA of spying on Senate staffers. She has generally been a [i]big[/i] supporter of the intelligence agencies. For her to go public with this says a lot about the lack of trust and how angry she is over this.
A behind-the-scenes battle between the CIA and Congress erupted in public Tuesday as the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee accused the agency of breaking laws and breaching constitutional principles in an alleged effort to undermine the panels multi-year investigation of a controversial interrogation program.
Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) accused the CIA of secretly removing documents, searching computers used by the committee and attempting to intimidate congressional investigators by requesting an FBI inquiry of their conduct charges that CIA Director John Brennan disputed within hours of her appearance on the Senate floor.
Feinstein described the escalating conflict as a defining moment for Congresss role in overseeing the nations intelligence agencies and cited grave concerns that the CIA had violated the separation-of-powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution.
The dueling claims exposed bitterness and distrust that have soared to new levels as the committee nears completion of a 6,000-page report that is expected to serve as a scathing historical record of the agencys use of waterboarding and other brutal interrogation methods on terrorism suspects held at secret CIA prisons overseas after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Displaying flashes of anger during her floor speech, Feinstein said her committee would soon deliver the report to the White House and push for declassification of a document that lays bare the horrible details of the CIA program that never, never, never should have existed.
….
Feinstein expressed outrage that the CIA referred the matter to the FBI. There is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime, she said, describing the move as a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and I am not taking it lightly.
She also noted that the referral was made by Robert Eatinger, the CIAs acting general counsel, who previously served as the top lawyer for the department that ran the CIAs secret prisons, and who is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study.
Feinstein, who has been a staunch supporter of other CIA programs including its drone campaign, said the agency may have violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, as well as laws against domestic surveillance.
-
Well yeah she has no problem with agencies spying on American citizens as long as she is not included. Unless she changes her stance on the NSA surveillance apparatus she is a hypocrite. Given that we know CIA spies on other world leaders, why would it be of any surprise that they are/were keeping tabs on Congress
-
The media quoted “DiFi” as stating that the CIA might have violated the 4th Amendment if they raided her office computer. As far as I know, everything on her computer is owned the by the US Government, and so what on earth does she thinks the 4th Amendment offers protection for? If anything, the CIA is protecting the US Government’s property by making sure those computers do not have anything of improper or unwarranted. If certain senators were able to procure documents by anything other than over-the-counter means, then they’re foolish for keeping it stored on government issue equipment.
-
Quote from Lux
The media quoted “DiFi” as stating that the CIA might have violated the 4th Amendment if they raided her office computer. As far as I know, everything on her computer is owned the by the US Government, and so what on earth does she thinks the 4th Amendment offers protection for? If anything, the CIA is protecting the US Government’s property by making sure those computers do not have anything of improper or unwarranted. If certain senators were able to procure documents by anything other than over-the-counter means, then they’re foolish for keeping it stored on government issue equipment.
She would not have to own the computer to make a search of it a violation of 4the 4th Ammendment. The search would have to have been conducted [i]legally[/i], with probable cause etc (or perhaps with FISA judge support in this case). The DOJ has a “strong preference for warrants” when approving searches of computers. This area of 4th Ammenmendment law is still evolving but a strong argument can be made that if the CIA searched without a warrant or approval from the FISA court or some other body they were in violation of the US Constitution.
The fact that it is a government computer and not her own personal PC does not have bearing.-
Quote from dergon
Quote from Lux
The media quoted “DiFi” as stating that the CIA might have violated the 4th Amendment if they raided her office computer. As far as I know, everything on her computer is owned the by the US Government, and so what on earth does she thinks the 4th Amendment offers protection for? If anything, the CIA is protecting the US Government’s property by making sure those computers do not have anything of improper or unwarranted. If certain senators were able to procure documents by anything other than over-the-counter means, then they’re foolish for keeping it stored on government issue equipment.
She would not have to own the computer to make a search of it a violation of 4the 4th Ammendment. The search would have to have been conducted [i]legally[/i], with probable cause etc (or perhaps with FISA judge support in this case). The DOJ has a “strong preference for warrants” when approving searches of computers. This area of 4th Ammenmendment law is still evolving but a strong argument can be made that if the CIA searched without a warrant or approval from the FISA court or some other body they were in violation of the US Constitution.
The fact that it is a government computer and not her own personal PC does not have bearing.
I’m not sure I understand our point. If I own a business, I don’t need a warrant to inspect my employees computers and remove any documents that I deem improper or unauthorized.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
Quote from Lux
The media quoted “DiFi” as stating that the CIA might have violated the 4th Amendment if they raided her office computer. As far as I know, everything on her computer is owned the by the US Government, and so what on earth does she thinks the 4th Amendment offers protection for? If anything, the CIA is protecting the US Government’s property by making sure those computers do not have anything of improper or unwarranted. If certain senators were able to procure documents by anything other than over-the-counter means, then they’re foolish for keeping it stored on government issue equipment.
She would not have to own the computer to make a search of it a violation of 4the 4th Ammendment. The search would have to have been conducted [i]legally[/i], with probable cause etc (or perhaps with FISA judge support in this case). The DOJ has a “strong preference for warrants” when approving searches of computers. This area of 4th Ammenmendment law is still evolving but a strong argument can be made that if the CIA searched without a warrant or approval from the FISA court or some other body they were in violation of the US Constitution.
The fact that it is a government computer and not her own personal PC does not have bearing.
I’m not sure I understand our point. If I own a business, I don’t need a warrant to inspect my employees computers and remove any documents that I deem improper or unauthorized.
That’s because one is a private business, the other the government. The 4th Ammendment does not protect a citizen from a private search by a private employer of the employer’s owned property.
But when the searcher is the US government, the 4th Ammendment applies.
The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or employers, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment. However, Fourth Amendment concerns do arise when those same actions are taken by a law enforcement official or a private person working in conjunction with law enforcement.-
But the government is not searching Feinstein, the “citizen”. It is searching its own computer equipment.
I believe it’s well within my rights to search my equipment any time of day or night without having to ask a court for permission, regardless of whether I’m running a church, business, school, or government office. The US Government certainly doesn’t need court permission to search and scrub its own government issue equipment. If Feinstein had placed those files on her own personal computer at home I agree that she is entitled to such protection, but not when she’s using her employer’s equipment. It’s the same reason her employer has full right to listen in on, and/or record, any telecom she makes on a US Government-owned communication device.
What am I missing?
-
You’re missing that the CIA cannot just walk into a Senate office, either overtly or covertly, and search whatever they want. They need a warrant for that.
-
I did not know that. Of course, I assume they didn’t do it on their own but got an authorized marching order to do so. But I honestly don’t know who “owns” the Senate’s computers that might have authority to order a CIA scrub-a-dub.
-
CIA does what it wants anyway. Not sure they use FISA or otherwise asks for permission–see torture
-
Quote from Thor
CIA does what it wants anyway.
[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/r-cia-inquiry-clears-officials-of-wrongdoing-in-dispute-with-senate-panel-2015-1]http://www.businessinside…th-senate-panel-2015-1[/link]
[b]The CIA Will Not Discipline Anyone For Spying On Senate Torture Probe [/b] -
Everyone should be able to investigate their own “inappropriate actions” so they can find their own actions “reasonable” while agreeing that they were inappropriate. Or have friendly investigators make the finding for you.
Rejecting the findings of previous inquiries into the matter, the CIA review group found that the agency employees actions were reasonable in light of their responsibilities to manage an unprecedented computer system set up for Senate aides involved in a multiyear probe of the CIAs treatment of terrorism suspects.
But while such transgressions were clearly inappropriate, Bayh said in a statement released by the CIA, they did not reflect malfeasance, bad faith, or the intention to gain improper access to sensitive Senate material.The findings are at odds with the conclusions reached by the CIAs inspector general in a separate review last year and were quickly dismissed by lawmakers including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who led the investigation of the interrogation program.
Let me be clear: I continue to believe CIAs actions constituted a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, Feinstein said in a written statement. She noted that CIA Director John O. Brennan had previously apologized for the dispute but said she was disappointed that no one at the CIA will be held accountable.
-
Since 2007, the NSA has been under court orders to preserve data about certain of its surveillance efforts that came under legal attack following disclosures that President George W. Bush ordered warrantless wiretapping of international communications after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. In addition, the agency has made a series of representations in court over the years about how it is complying with its duties.
However, the NSA told U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in a filing on Thursday night and another little-noticed submission last year that the agency did not preserve the content of internet communications intercepted between 2001 and 2007 under the program Bush ordered. To make matters worse, backup tapes that might have mitigated the failure were erased in 2009, 2011 and 2016, the NSA said.
Well, well, well, how convenient it was for NSA to “mistakenly” erase records they were obligated to maintain.[link=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/nsa-deletes-surveillance-data-351730]https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/nsa-deletes-surveillance-data-351730[/link]
Like the CIA and the torture tapes -
[b]wrong thread [/b]
-
thoughts from a person who has ZERO political experience–they can give rich people tax breaks
Quote from dergon
[b][link=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/369967-eric-trump-the-government-shutdown-is-good-for-us-politically]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/369967-eric-trump-the-government-shutdown-is-good-for-us-politically[/link][/b]
Eric Trump: The shutdown is good for us politically.
Well said, Eric. 🙂
-
Good thing we bought them a new overbudget, underdelivered, delayed data center in Utah.
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/a-visit-to-the-nsas-data-center-in-utah/416691/]https://www.theatlantic.c…center-in-utah/416691/[/link]
-
This is what I meant to post:
[link=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/nsa-deletes-surveillance-data-351730]https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/nsa-deletes-surveillance-data-351730[/link]
[b]
NSA deleted surveillance data it pledged to preserve[/b]
The National Security Agency destroyed surveillance data it pledged to preserve in connection with pending lawsuits and apparently never took some of the steps it told a federal court it had taken to make sure the information wasnt destroyed, according to recent court filings.
Word of the NSAs foul-up is emerging just as Congress has extended for six years the legal authority the agency uses for much of its surveillance work conducted through U.S. internet providers and tech firms. President Donald Trump signed that measure into law Friday.
Since 2007, the NSA has been under court orders to preserve data about certain of its surveillance efforts that came under legal attack following disclosures that President George W. Bush ordered warrantless wiretapping of international communications after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. In addition, the agency has made a series of representations in court over the years about how it is complying with its duties.
However, the NSA told U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in a filing on Thursday night and another little-noticed submission last year that the agency did not preserve the content of internet communications intercepted between 2001 and 2007 under the program Bush ordered. To make matters worse, backup tapes that might have mitigated the failure were erased in 2009, 2011 and 2016, the NSA said.how convenient it was for NSA to “mistakenly” erase records they were obligated to maintain.
-
Surprise, surprise! Everyone was worried about The Government spying through NSA while giving corporate spying on us a free pass.
While government spying on citizens is a very big concern they are small potatoes compared to Facebook & Google & everyone else taking our data & selling it.
WE ARE THE PRODUCT! Not the customer. Government has to answer to its citizens and is ‘hamstrung’ by many who are concerned with ethics even if the scoreboard isn’t 100%. Eventually the dirt does come out, even when by Snowdens and Ellsbergs.
But Facebook and Google? Not so corporations. Promises have been made before but here we are in ‘deja vu all over again’ land.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/facebook-makes-the-snowden-affair-look-quaint-its-time-to-regulate/2018/04/10/cad3feec-3c31-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…acd97698cef_story.html[/link]
In retrospect, [link=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964]the Snowden affair[/link] looks almost quaint. In 2013, the National Security Agency was accused of monitoring the metadata of Americans telephone logs, for example in search of patterns that would help identify terrorists. And just imagine! that was a major scandal.
Even at the time, I thought it odd that we were so worried about the NSA which is bound by ethics and privacy rules and, at least in principle, is answerable to Congress whereas we werent at all concerned about Facebook, which had far more of our data, was bound by no rules and was answerable to no one. Thanks mostly to the work of a single reporter, [link=https://www.theguardian.com/profile/carolecadwalladr]Carole Cadwalladr of the Observer[/link], [link=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump]we have learned [/link]that Facebook not only had our data but also was giving it to people who knowingly sought to manipulate it for political purposes.
the European Union has been way ahead of the United States in debating and now implementing regulation. Next month, the E.U. general data protection regulation [link=https://www.eugdpr.org/]will go into effect[/link], a set of rules that require transparency for all online companies around the use of data, greater control for individuals over their data, as well as penalties for abuse.
These discussions are long overdue. Electronic media, social media and other innovations have created new challenges for law enforcement and national security; they have also helped to increase polarization and undermine trust in public institutions, in America and everywhere else. Zuckerberg, by himself, is not going to come up with a solution to any of these problems. We are Facebooks customers, but we are also citizens of a democracy. We have the right to decide how we want this technology to impact our lives and our politics, and its time to say so.
-
And Liz Cheney thinks is it is “despicable” for Obama to criticize post-9/11 torture.
[link=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/02/liz-cheney-despiciable-obama-slanders-patriots-when-he-admits-to-post-911-torture/]http://www.rawstory.com/r…s-to-post-911-torture/[/link]
Quote from Liz Cheney
You know Monica, this president is an utter disgrace. Hes got a situation where, as your last two reports showed, youve got crises erupting around the world, and he is expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11. Hes lying about what they did, hes slandering them, he went to Cairo and did it in 2009.
Today he did it from the podium of the Oval Office. Its a disgrace. Its despicable.
For the record, Obama said this:
“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.
Sorry Liz, it was wrong. The president should have come out stronger and harder on it than he has. And he should have done it years ago. And he should aggressively turned course while publicaly declaring such. He has barely touched the bare minimum of what our nation should have done in turning away from the post-9/11 darkness that fell on our collective national soul. It deserves to be called out as immorral and, if needs be, criminal.
Oh, and Liz… your father is a despicable, despicable man who was right in the middle of it all. He is the black whole of the darkness.
-
[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-cia-apology-20140731-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/na…gy-20140731-story.html[/link]
[b]CIA apologizes, admits it improperly searched Senate computers[/b]
The CIA on Thursday acknowledged that its employees inappropriately searched and pulled files from a Senate computer network set up as part of an inquiry into the CIAs secret Bush-era interrogation program.
In a statement issued by the agency, a CIA spokesman said Director John Brennan had apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other committee leaders for the computer search.
The spokesman said the agencys inspector general had found evidence that CIA officers actions were inconsistent with the common understanding between the agency and committee.
The director is committed to correcting any shortcomings related to this matter, CIA spokesman Dean Boyd said Thursday.
The CIA has set up an accountability board, led by former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, to review the inspector generals findings and recommend disciplinary actions, if necessary, Boyd said.
Feinstein, in a statement, called the actions positive first steps.
-
Brennan has hacked passport records before when he had to scrub Obama’s record before …
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/440777-judge-dismisses-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping-lawsuit-citing]https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/440777-judge-dismisses-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping-lawsuit-citing
[/link]
Judge dismisses Bush-era warrantless wiretapping lawsuit citing national security concerns[/h1][link=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/25/judge-cites-state-secrets-risk-in-dismissing-warrantless-wiretapping-suit-1290340]Politico reported[/link] that U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White dismissed a lawsuit originally filed in 2008 that argued that the Terrorist Surveillance Program set up by the NSA under President George W. Bush violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
White wrote in his ruling that allowing the case to proceed could have “devastating” consequences for U.S. national security, according to Politico.
The Court cannot issue any determinative finding on the issue of whether or not Plaintiffs have standing without taking the risk that such a ruling may result in potentially devastating national security consequences, he reportedly wrote.
In his ruling, White argued that plaintiffs could not determine whether or not the U.S. government had spied on their phone records without revealing state secrets.
The Ninth Circuit was not presented with the issue of what to do when, as here, the answer to the question of whether a particular plaintiff was subjected to surveillance is the very information over which the Government seeks to assert the state secrets privilege, he wrote, according to Politico.
The rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which brought the suit, vowed to repeal the ruling.
[/QUOTE]
-
There was an interesting Twitter thread between someone and Jet Blue Twitter. Apparently they can now use facial recognition and that interfaces to the government somehow to confirm your identity.
[link=https://twitter.com/mackenzief/status/1118509708673998848?s=19]https://twitter.com/macke…18509708673998848?s=19[/link]
-
-
Playing the game … trying to appeal directly to Trump ….
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/485410-aclu-freedomworks-urge-trump-to-reform-rogue-fbi-as-part-of-intel-bill]ACLU, FreedomWorks urge Trump to reform ‘rogue FBI’ as part of intel bill
[/link]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and FreedomWorks are urging [link=https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump]President Trump[/link] to support including broader surveillance reforms as part of a bill reauthorizing soon-to-expire intelligence programs.
The two groups went up on Monday [link=https://youtu.be/qqJvB-HJvp4]with an ad[/link], which will air on Fox News, telling Trump to support reforming the “rogue FBI.”
“President Trump, as Congress considers the Patriot Act, tell them to rein in a rogue FBI and reform our surveillance laws, so that this never happens again,” the ad says.
The ad will air through Friday and is part of a six-figure, multi-state TV and digital ad campaign to urge Trump and Congress to enact broader surveillance reforms.
[/QUOTE]-
Quote from dergon
Playing the game … trying to appeal directly to Trump ….
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/485410-aclu-freedomworks-urge-trump-to-reform-rogue-fbi-as-part-of-intel-bill]ACLU, FreedomWorks urge Trump to reform ‘rogue FBI’ as part of intel bill
[/link]
And if he does, suddenly the democrats will profess their newfound love for the surveillance state.
Advertising to an audience of 1 is not that unusual in the DC metro. If you get the WaPo, you will find the occasional cryptic ad: ‘The Navy needs the TR226.45 procurement program to maintain warfighter efficiency at peak efficiency.’
-
fw, why is it so hard for these guys to understand … anything?
If anything, I have learned from this board how easy it is to propagandize people, and IQ means nothing if you don’t have critical thinking, honesty, or wisdom.-
Closest thread –
Diane Feinstein will step down as head of Senate Judiciary committee.
(Next step …. retire)
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Playing the game … trying to appeal directly to Trump ….
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/485410-aclu-freedomworks-urge-trump-to-reform-rogue-fbi-as-part-of-intel-bill]ACLU, FreedomWorks urge Trump to reform ‘rogue FBI’ as part of intel bill
[/link]
And if he does, suddenly the democrats will profess their newfound love for the surveillance state.
Well, I for one am [b]not[/b] in the “everything Trump does is bad by definition” camp.
If he is able to take Republicans to the mat and force surveillance reforms I promise to come back to this page and post my praise.
…
[link=https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-tells-republicans-he-wont-extend-surveillance-law-without-significant-reform/]https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-tells-republicans-he-wont-extend-surveillance-law-without-significant-reform/[/link]
Trump Tells Republicans He Wont Extend Surveillance Law Without Significant Reform[/h1]
Trump met privately on Tuesday to discuss the expiring USA Freedom Act with Attorney General William Barr and House and Senate Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, as well as other lawmakers.
It was a spirited discussion. The president made it exceedingly clear he will not accept a clean re-authorization without real reform, [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/03/gop-trump-meeting-fisa-surveillance-law-119417]said[/link] libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican. He was told by the attorney general, we can massage around the edges and we can fix this through regulation, the president didnt accept that, pushed back very vigorously and said were not doing this.’
Lawmakers are currently at an impasse over how and whether to extend three surveillance laws under the USA Freedom Act that expire March 15. Some GOP lawmakers have pushed for an extension of a month, so they have time to work out a deal with Democrats. Trump, however, reportedly appeared reluctant to agree to any extension that would last longer than a few weeks.
My own preference is to extend these three or four expiring authorities, McConnell said. But there are differences among my members and among the Democrats on the way forward. Whether we can resolve those and pass new legislation is unclear. If were unable to resolve our differences, my preference would be for another extension.
-
-
-
[link=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/579376-supreme-court-wont-review-aclu-request-for-access-surveillance-court]Supreme Court won’t review ACLU request for access surveillance court rulings[/link]
The ACLU had asked the Supreme Court to consider whether Americans have a First Amendment right to access decisions handed down by the secretive foreign intelligence court (FISC), which has played a central role amid the governments expanded mass surveillance efforts over the past two decades.
…
This case presents questions about the right of public access to Article III judicial proceedings of grave national importance, Gorsuch wrote {ijn his dissent, joined by Sotomayor}. Maybe even more fundamentally, this case involves a governmental challenge to the power of this Court to review the work of Article III judges in a subordinate court. If these matters are not worthy of our time, what is?The case stems from a request the ACLU filed with the surveillance court in October 2016 that sought records from 2001 through 2015, a period when mass government surveillance greatly expanded and which came to light in part from the 2013 disclosures of former government contractor Edward Snowden.
[/QUOTE]
-
[h3][link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-11/cia-secretly-collected-data-on-american-citizens-senators-say?srnd=premium]CIA Secretly Collected Bulk Data on American Citizens, Senators Say[/link][/h3] [b]Two U.S. senators question the secret collection of data on citizens without congressional oversight.
[/b]
The senators, members of the Intelligence Committee, say that the agency has conducted its own bulk program and has done so outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection. The letter, which was heavily redacted, did not indicate how long, exactly, the surveillance had unfolded, how widespread it had been, or what sort of information was collected and from whom.
Wyden and Heinrich, who had asked about the amount of data collected and the circumstances of its storage and dissemination, said the program or programs didnt have the oversight safeguards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which governs tracking of people suspected of being involved in terrorism or espionage.
Until a report was delivered last March, the senators said the the nature and full extent of the CIAs collection was withheld even from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.[/QUOTE]
-
so does the NSA. They sniff and save every packet. Touch more of the internet than google.
-
Quote from dergon
Closest thread –
Diane Feinstein will step down as head of Senate Judiciary committee.
(Next step …. retire)
[h1]Feinstein Unaware She Declined President Pro Tempore[/h1]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has previously said she doesnt want to be president pro tempore of the Senate third in line to the presidency but [link=https://www.businessinsider.com/senator-dianne-feinstein-third-in-line-presidency-pro-tempore-2022-11]when asked about it by Insider[/link], the 89-year old seemed unaware that shed issued a statement declining the position last month.
-
If anyone should be put on the iceberg and pushed out to sea.its her.
-
-
-
-
