OGBDeacon07
Well-known member
Wishful thinking!
Americans are too busy watching The Voice or texting their friends to care about civil liberties.
FBI tapping all Verizon calls
- Thread starter ProfessorDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Wishful thinking!
Americans are too busy watching The Voice or texting their friends to care about civil liberties.
OGBDeacon07
Well-known member
How funny. I just got an email from Verizon touting some great new services for my DSL.
They never email me.
They never email me.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
meh, what kind of life is that?
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
Drone strike, you're done.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
WFFaithful
Well-known member
Fox News on the 2006 leak of NSA data mining of phone records:
[video]http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/foxnsastocks.320.240.mov[/video]
Fox News on the 2013 leak of NSA data mining of phone records:
[video]http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/foxnsastocks.320.240.mov[/video]
Fox News on the 2013 leak of NSA data mining of phone records:
CHillDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 5,789
- Reaction score
- 408
Fox & Friends in 2006
openly nixed the term “warrantless wiretapping” in favor of calling the spying “the terrorist surveillance program” and went out of their way to justify the practice. On January 25, 2006, Kilmeade said, “Let’s call it the terrorist surveillance program. That would be a lot easier.” Doocy concurred, “And more accurate.” “Yeah, more accurate too,” Kilmeade said. “If you’re for the NSA wiretapping without going to the FISA court, I guess warrantless, then most likely you’re Republican. If you are against it, you most likely are a Democrat.”
Fox & Friends 2013:
The trio were clearly alarmed about the spying, saying that it might be a violation of the PATRIOT Act. “What is the objective of getting these numbers and collecting all these numbers from all the millions of Americans?” asked co-host Brian Kilmeade. “Are they overseas calls? Is there terror activity? Is there reason to be suspicious? Or is this abuse of the PATRIOT Act?”
Steve Doocy, suddenly a legal expert of PATRIOT Act violations, said that this kind of data seizure is a violation of the Act’s section 215, which “said that you could go after people based on individual investigations,” but forbids data collection from average citizens. He went on to call it a “gigantic overreach” on the Obama administration’s part.
I mean, the guys name is Steve Doochey...what do you expect?
I sometimes believe that Pub's charges of recklessness would be better received if people did not have to conclude "Jesus Christ, Edith, I have to stand with the fuggin morons on Fox!"
Truly, on the other side, you'd want justice with the Big "J" but "Hesus Kristy on crutches! That means I'd have to side with the $5 word czar Keith Olberman and that collection of upper east side lispers from Newsweek!"
Good fuggin night and good luck, indeed.
I sometimes believe that Pub's charges of recklessness would be better received if people did not have to conclude "Jesus Christ, Edith, I have to stand with the fuggin morons on Fox!"
Truly, on the other side, you'd want justice with the Big "J" but "Hesus Kristy on crutches! That means I'd have to side with the $5 word czar Keith Olberman and that collection of upper east side lispers from Newsweek!"
Good fuggin night and good luck, indeed.
KickballDeac
Bernie Eskimo Bro
SkinsNDeacs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 12,384
- Reaction score
- 550
I can't believe people in this nation think like this...yet lots do.
Nice. Worth at least a thousand words...
That's unfair. Bush kept us safe.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
He did?
Now hold on a sec...this is still the President Obama who is drawing harsh rebukes from Human Rights Groups (approximately 250 adamantly opposed and on the ground) in the northern quadrant of Pakistan. Wurizistani (sp ck?) citizens are under the constant humm of drone strikes. They claim to be afraid to go to market or school or really any dam where outside of home for fear of getting smithereen'd.
That should bring a smile to the faces.
OGBDeacon07
Well-known member
Ouch.
OGBDeacon07
Well-known member
WaPo has obtained a set of slides from an NSA briefing on the surveillance setup:
It's interesting that they didnt' get Apple to participate until after Jobs' death..
It's interesting that they didnt' get Apple to participate until after Jobs' death..
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,158
- Reaction score
- 23,111
RaleighDevil
Well-known member
I have not read all this thread, so I don't know if this has been posted. The writer is not exactly a friend of big government by either party.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/06/the-fisa-court-order-flap-take-a-deep-breath/
[T]his is not some warrantless or extra-statutory surveillance program. The government had to persuade up to a dozen life-tenured members of the federal judiciary that the order is lawful. You may not like the legal interpretation that produced this order, but you can’t say it’s lawless.
In fact, it’s a near certainty that the underlying program has been carefully examined by all three branches of government and by both parties. As the Guardian story makes clear, Senator Ron Wyden has been agitating for years about what he called an interpretation of national security law that seems goes beyond anything the American people understood or would support. He could easily have been talking about orders like this. So it’s highly likely that the law behind this order was carefully vetted by both intelligence committees, Democrat-led in the Senate and Republican-led in the House. (Indeed, today the leaders of both committees gave interviews defending the order.) And in the executive branch, any legal interpretations adopted by the Bush administration would have been carefully scrubbed by President Obama’s Justice Department. ...
Imagine that the United States is intercepting al Qaeda communications in Yemen. Its leader there calls his weapons expert and says, “Our agent in the U.S. needs technical assistance constructing a weapon for an imminent operation. I’ve told him to use a throw-away cell phone to call you tomorrow at 11 a.m. on your throw-away phone. When you answer, he’ll give you the number of a second phone. You will buy a phone in the bazaar, and call him back on the second number at 2 p.m.”
Now, this is pretty good improvised tradecraft, and it would leave the government with no idea where or who the U.S.-based operative is or what phone numbers to monitor. It doesn’t have probable cause to investigate any particular American. But it surely does have probable cause to investigate any American who makes a call to Yemen at 11 a.m., Sanaa time, hangs up after a few seconds, and then gets a call from a different Yemeni number three hours later. Finding that person, however, isn’t easy, because the government can only identify the suspect by his calling patterns, not by his name.
So how does the NSA go about finding the one person in the United States whose calling pattern matches the terrorists’ plan? Well, it could ask every carrier to develop the capability to store all of their calls and to search them for patterns like this. But that would be very expensive, and its effectiveness is really only as good as the weakest, least cooperative carrier. And even then it wouldn’t work without massive, real-time information sharing — any reasonably intelligent U.S.-based terrorist would just buy his first throwaway phone from one carrier and his second phone from a different carrier.
The only way to make the system work, and the only way to identify and monitor the one American who is plotting with al Qaeda’s operatives in Yemen, is to pool all the carriers’ data on U.S. calls to and from Yemen and to search it all together — and for the costs to be borne by all of us, not by the carriers.
In short, the government has to do it.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/06/the-fisa-court-order-flap-take-a-deep-breath/
[T]his is not some warrantless or extra-statutory surveillance program. The government had to persuade up to a dozen life-tenured members of the federal judiciary that the order is lawful. You may not like the legal interpretation that produced this order, but you can’t say it’s lawless.
In fact, it’s a near certainty that the underlying program has been carefully examined by all three branches of government and by both parties. As the Guardian story makes clear, Senator Ron Wyden has been agitating for years about what he called an interpretation of national security law that seems goes beyond anything the American people understood or would support. He could easily have been talking about orders like this. So it’s highly likely that the law behind this order was carefully vetted by both intelligence committees, Democrat-led in the Senate and Republican-led in the House. (Indeed, today the leaders of both committees gave interviews defending the order.) And in the executive branch, any legal interpretations adopted by the Bush administration would have been carefully scrubbed by President Obama’s Justice Department. ...
Imagine that the United States is intercepting al Qaeda communications in Yemen. Its leader there calls his weapons expert and says, “Our agent in the U.S. needs technical assistance constructing a weapon for an imminent operation. I’ve told him to use a throw-away cell phone to call you tomorrow at 11 a.m. on your throw-away phone. When you answer, he’ll give you the number of a second phone. You will buy a phone in the bazaar, and call him back on the second number at 2 p.m.”
Now, this is pretty good improvised tradecraft, and it would leave the government with no idea where or who the U.S.-based operative is or what phone numbers to monitor. It doesn’t have probable cause to investigate any particular American. But it surely does have probable cause to investigate any American who makes a call to Yemen at 11 a.m., Sanaa time, hangs up after a few seconds, and then gets a call from a different Yemeni number three hours later. Finding that person, however, isn’t easy, because the government can only identify the suspect by his calling patterns, not by his name.
So how does the NSA go about finding the one person in the United States whose calling pattern matches the terrorists’ plan? Well, it could ask every carrier to develop the capability to store all of their calls and to search them for patterns like this. But that would be very expensive, and its effectiveness is really only as good as the weakest, least cooperative carrier. And even then it wouldn’t work without massive, real-time information sharing — any reasonably intelligent U.S.-based terrorist would just buy his first throwaway phone from one carrier and his second phone from a different carrier.
The only way to make the system work, and the only way to identify and monitor the one American who is plotting with al Qaeda’s operatives in Yemen, is to pool all the carriers’ data on U.S. calls to and from Yemen and to search it all together — and for the costs to be borne by all of us, not by the carriers.
In short, the government has to do it.
Well, since the injunctions and restraining orders were served.