i'm impatient to read the next revelations from Snowden, was expecting more pissed off heads of state after it came out they were spying on G8 invitees.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
U.S. Government spying on entire U.S., to nobody's surprise
- Thread starter frito bandito
- Start date
- Status
Im sure there are alot of pissed heads, but to tell the global bully to piss off takes alot of courage.
Dont wanna get a wedgie if ya know what im sayin?
Then again, i feel alot more safe to have the US as global bullies.
Compared to having Russian tanks in my streets, or even Chinese ones.
EDIT: speaking in general, not domestic here. sorray missed that one. puff, heh
another hit piece by the judge
Fidelity to the Constitution When We Need It
When former spy Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the federal government is spying on most Americans, most Americans were surprised and unhappy. But half of official Washington yawned before it roared. Somehow the people in the government had a pretty good idea of what government spies are doing, and they more or less approve of it – but not all of them.
Politicians as diverse as Republican Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Snowden a traitor. So did former Vice President Dick Cheney, and President Obama said that for once Cheney’s words were music to his ears. On the other hand, former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, my Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly and I have all referred to Snowden as a hero.
What did Snowden do that has those in power screaming for his scalp and those – generally – who fear the loss of liberty, including millions of young people, grateful for his courage?
The NSA is America’s domestic spying apparatus. Its budget is secret. It will soon occupy the largest federal building on the planet. It often hires outside contractors to do much of its work. One of those contractors is Booz Allen Hamilton. Booz Allen’s co-chair is former Admiral John M. McConnell, who once headed the NSA. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
Shortly after Snowden began his work with the NSA, he came to the realization that he could not comply with both oaths. He realized that by keeping secret what he learned, he was keeping the American public in the dark about what its government is doing outside the Constitution in order to control the public.
What is it doing?
The government persuaded a federal judge with a perverse understanding of the values and history and language of the Constitution to sign a series of orders directing the largest telephone company in the U.S. and the largest Internet providers in the world to make available to the government’s prying eyes all sorts of information about nearly all of us, thus allowing the feds to monitor our use of land line and wireless phones, as well as our use of emails and texts. The numbers are staggering. Verizon has greater than 113,000,000 U.S. customers who generate or receive more than one billion phone calls every day. Americans text and email one another using the services of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and others many billions of times every day.
The judge’s order was profoundly unconstitutional, as is the section of the Patriot Act that authorized it. The Constitution requires that the government demonstrate to all judges being asked to sign search warrants specific evidence of criminal behavior contained in the things to be seized. And it requires that the warrants themselves particularly describe the places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized.
In this case, the things being seized consist of digital data about nearly everyone in America, which in the hands of a skilled spy can be used to monitor our physical movements and communications and, according to former CIA Director David Petraeus, to predict them. The Patriot Act facilitates these dragnets by unconstitutionally reducing the standard for the issuance of search warrants. The president, who refuses to deny that his spies possess the content of our communications, claims they are not listening to it or reading it.
Who would believe President Obama?
One of the spies who knew the power he and his fellow spies had and who had access to the innermost thoughts of hundreds of millions of us – and who disbelieved the president – was Edward Snowden. Snowden realized the unconstitutional nature of what the government was doing and concluded that he could not be faithful to both of his oaths. One of those oaths – to retain secrets – is grounded in a federal statute that requires secrecy and punishes the exposure of secrets. The other oath is grounded in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and protects the natural right to be left alone and does not punish the governmental violation of that right.
When confronted with the conflicting oaths, Snowden opted for the higher good: fidelity to the supreme law of the land. Hence, in order to protect the privacy of us all, Snowden violated the lesser oath and upheld the greater one. He could not serve two masters when the lesser of the two (fidelity to the government’s laws) facilitated a corruption of the greater of the two (the primacy to the Constitution).
He’s a traitor, the establishment roared. He’s a high school dropout. He left the Army. He admits to having lots of sex with his girlfriend. He fled to Hong Kong.
Who cares?
He understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that if we don’t control the government, the government will control us. That’s why the Washington establishment yawned when we learned what it knew and now roars because Snowden challenged it. Those in power want to stay there and will misuse the Constitution to do so for as long as they can get away with it, no matter to which political party they belong. Any government that secretly spies on nearly all the population is aiming to control the population.
Snowden knew that this massive violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of nearly every American, orchestrated and operated in secrecy, is corrupting the Constitution and empowering the corruptors. It was that understanding plus a willingness to face down those in power who lack fidelity to the Constitution and who can do him harm that constituted the behavior of a hero.
Is he flawed?
The only hero who was not flawed was nailed to a tree 2,000 years ago because those He came into the world to save rejected Him.
Fidelity to the Constitution When We Need It
When former spy Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the federal government is spying on most Americans, most Americans were surprised and unhappy. But half of official Washington yawned before it roared. Somehow the people in the government had a pretty good idea of what government spies are doing, and they more or less approve of it – but not all of them.
Politicians as diverse as Republican Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Snowden a traitor. So did former Vice President Dick Cheney, and President Obama said that for once Cheney’s words were music to his ears. On the other hand, former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, my Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly and I have all referred to Snowden as a hero.
What did Snowden do that has those in power screaming for his scalp and those – generally – who fear the loss of liberty, including millions of young people, grateful for his courage?
The NSA is America’s domestic spying apparatus. Its budget is secret. It will soon occupy the largest federal building on the planet. It often hires outside contractors to do much of its work. One of those contractors is Booz Allen Hamilton. Booz Allen’s co-chair is former Admiral John M. McConnell, who once headed the NSA. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
Shortly after Snowden began his work with the NSA, he came to the realization that he could not comply with both oaths. He realized that by keeping secret what he learned, he was keeping the American public in the dark about what its government is doing outside the Constitution in order to control the public.
What is it doing?
The government persuaded a federal judge with a perverse understanding of the values and history and language of the Constitution to sign a series of orders directing the largest telephone company in the U.S. and the largest Internet providers in the world to make available to the government’s prying eyes all sorts of information about nearly all of us, thus allowing the feds to monitor our use of land line and wireless phones, as well as our use of emails and texts. The numbers are staggering. Verizon has greater than 113,000,000 U.S. customers who generate or receive more than one billion phone calls every day. Americans text and email one another using the services of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and others many billions of times every day.
The judge’s order was profoundly unconstitutional, as is the section of the Patriot Act that authorized it. The Constitution requires that the government demonstrate to all judges being asked to sign search warrants specific evidence of criminal behavior contained in the things to be seized. And it requires that the warrants themselves particularly describe the places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized.
In this case, the things being seized consist of digital data about nearly everyone in America, which in the hands of a skilled spy can be used to monitor our physical movements and communications and, according to former CIA Director David Petraeus, to predict them. The Patriot Act facilitates these dragnets by unconstitutionally reducing the standard for the issuance of search warrants. The president, who refuses to deny that his spies possess the content of our communications, claims they are not listening to it or reading it.
Who would believe President Obama?
One of the spies who knew the power he and his fellow spies had and who had access to the innermost thoughts of hundreds of millions of us – and who disbelieved the president – was Edward Snowden. Snowden realized the unconstitutional nature of what the government was doing and concluded that he could not be faithful to both of his oaths. One of those oaths – to retain secrets – is grounded in a federal statute that requires secrecy and punishes the exposure of secrets. The other oath is grounded in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and protects the natural right to be left alone and does not punish the governmental violation of that right.
When confronted with the conflicting oaths, Snowden opted for the higher good: fidelity to the supreme law of the land. Hence, in order to protect the privacy of us all, Snowden violated the lesser oath and upheld the greater one. He could not serve two masters when the lesser of the two (fidelity to the government’s laws) facilitated a corruption of the greater of the two (the primacy to the Constitution).
He’s a traitor, the establishment roared. He’s a high school dropout. He left the Army. He admits to having lots of sex with his girlfriend. He fled to Hong Kong.
Who cares?
He understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that if we don’t control the government, the government will control us. That’s why the Washington establishment yawned when we learned what it knew and now roars because Snowden challenged it. Those in power want to stay there and will misuse the Constitution to do so for as long as they can get away with it, no matter to which political party they belong. Any government that secretly spies on nearly all the population is aiming to control the population.
Snowden knew that this massive violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of nearly every American, orchestrated and operated in secrecy, is corrupting the Constitution and empowering the corruptors. It was that understanding plus a willingness to face down those in power who lack fidelity to the Constitution and who can do him harm that constituted the behavior of a hero.
Is he flawed?
The only hero who was not flawed was nailed to a tree 2,000 years ago because those He came into the world to save rejected Him.
I like Judge Napolitano. Very smart guy and knows the constitution extremely well.
I quit watching the news some time back Tired of being told what to believe and decided to find my own truth through other outlets.
I quit watching the news some time back Tired of being told what to believe and decided to find my own truth through other outlets.
the judge rocks, but they canceled his show freedom watch in 2012 because ron paul was gaining to much momentum and he was a frequent guest on the show.there was literally a blackout campaign by the media stations to get him off the air.i'm sure he broke the record for most technical difficulties ending a interview.
2012 ELECTIONS RIGGED BY MEDIA BLACKOUT OF RON PAUL
[YOUTUBEIF]keWX55SpYmU[/YOUTUBEIF]
i find very few things on the tv interesting too,the interweb is my go to for info.
2012 ELECTIONS RIGGED BY MEDIA BLACKOUT OF RON PAUL
[YOUTUBEIF]keWX55SpYmU[/YOUTUBEIF]
i find very few things on the tv interesting too,the interweb is my go to for info.
Agreed. The judge is smart. He is entertaining in the way he approaches the truth behind things. He doesn't sugar coat events but tells how it is letting the chips fall where they may.
American politics is a bitch. Let a guy get too popular with his beliefs and whammmooo blaammmmoooo--- no show for you. They just can't handle the truth.
They do the same thing to Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul did come across a little "off his rocker" so to speak, and they used that against him. BUT THE MAN KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND HERE WE ARE TODAY SEEING THAT WHAT HE SAID ABOUT OUR GUBMENT IS IN FACT THE TRUTH.
Crucify the messenger. It always works with media support.
American politics is a bitch. Let a guy get too popular with his beliefs and whammmooo blaammmmoooo--- no show for you. They just can't handle the truth.
They do the same thing to Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul did come across a little "off his rocker" so to speak, and they used that against him. BUT THE MAN KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND HERE WE ARE TODAY SEEING THAT WHAT HE SAID ABOUT OUR GUBMENT IS IN FACT THE TRUTH.
Crucify the messenger. It always works with media support.
Revealed: the top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant
Fisa court submissions show broad scope of procedures governing NSA's surveillance of Americans' communication
• Document one: procedures used by NSA to target non-US persons
• Document two: procedures used by NSA to minimise data collected from US persons
Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information "inadvertently" collected from domestic US communications without a warrant.
The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target "non-US persons" under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.
The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and used.
The procedures cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic US communications. The bulk collection of domestic call records, as first revealed by the Guardian earlier this month, takes place under rolling court orders issued on the basis of a legal interpretation of a different authority, section 215 of the Patriot Act.
The Fisa court's oversight role has been referenced many times by Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials as they have sought to reassure the public about surveillance, but the procedures approved by the court have never before been publicly disclosed.
The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.
However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:
• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;
• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants.
The documents also show that discretion as to who is actually targeted under the NSA's foreign surveillance powers lies directly with its own analysts, without recourse to courts or superiors – though a percentage of targeting decisions are reviewed by internal audit teams on a regular basis.
Since the Guardian first revealed the extent of the NSA's collection of US communications, there have been repeated calls for the legal basis of the programs to be released. On Thursday, two US congressmen introduced a bill compelling the Obama administration to declassify the secret legal justifications for NSA surveillance.
The disclosure bill, sponsored by Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, is a complement to one proposed in the Senate last week. It would "increase the transparency of the Fisa Court and the state of the law in this area," Schiff told the Guardian. "It would give the public a better understanding of the safeguards, as well as the scope of these programs."
Section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act (FAA), which was renewed for five years last December, is the authority under which the NSA is allowed to collect large-scale data, including foreign communications and also communications between the US and other countries, provided the target is overseas.
FAA warrants are issued by the Fisa court for up to 12 months at a time, and authorise the collection of bulk information – some of which can include communications of US citizens, or people inside the US. To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant.
One-paragraph order
One such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order, signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment.
Those procedures state that the "NSA determines whether a person is a non-United States person reasonably believed to be outside the United States in light of the totality of the circumstances based on the information available with respect to that person, including information concerning the communications facility or facilities used by that person".
It includes information that the NSA analyst uses to make this determination - including IP addresses, statements made by the potential target, and other information in the NSA databases, which can include public information and data collected by other agencies.
Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues.
"In the absence of specific information regarding whether a target is a United States person," it states "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States or whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person."
If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US, analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case.
Referring to steps taken to prevent intentional collection of telephone content of those inside the US, the document states: "NSA analysts may analyze content for indications that a foreign target has entered or intends to enter the United States. Such content analysis will be conducted according to analytic and intelligence requirements and priorities."
Details set out in the "minimization procedures", regularly referred to in House and Senate hearings, as well as public statements in recent weeks, also raise questions as to the extent of monitoring of US citizens and residents.
NSA minimization procedures signed by Holder in 2009 set out that once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately. However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones.
The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and the policy states "communications which may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA's ability to filter communications".
Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic – entirely within the US – the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains "significant foreign intelligence information", "evidence of a crime", "technical data base information" (such as encrypted communications), or "information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property".
Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules.
The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria.
A separate section of the same document notes that as soon as any intercepted communications are determined to have been between someone under US criminal indictment and their attorney, surveillance must stop. However, the material collected can be retained, if it is useful, though in a segregated database:
"The relevant portion of the communication containing that conversation will be segregated and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice will be notified so that appropriate procedures may be established to protect such communications from review or use in any criminal prosecution, while preserving foreign intelligence information contained therein," the document states.
In practice, much of the decision-making appears to lie with NSA analysts, rather than the Fisa court or senior officials.
A transcript of a 2008 briefing on FAA from the NSA's general counsel sets out how much discretion NSA analysts possess when it comes to the specifics of targeting, and making decisions on who they believe is a non-US person. Referring to a situation where there has been a suggestion a target is within the US.
"Once again, the standard here is a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States. What does that mean when you get information that might lead you to believe the contrary? It means you can't ignore it. You can't turn a blind eye to somebody saying: 'Hey, I think so and so is in the United States.' You can't ignore that. Does it mean you have to completely turn off collection the minute you hear that? No, it means you have to do some sort of investigation: 'Is that guy right? Is my target here?" he says.
"But, if everything else you have says 'no' (he talked yesterday, I saw him on TV yesterday, even, depending on the target, he was in Baghdad) you can still continue targeting but you have to keep that in mind. You can't put it aside. You have to investigate it and, once again, with that new information in mind, what is your reasonable belief about your target's location?"
The broad nature of the court's oversight role, and the discretion given to NSA analysts, sheds light on responses from the administration and internet companies to the Guardian's disclosure of the PRISM program. They have stated that the content of online communications is turned over to the NSA only pursuant to a court order. But except when a US citizen is specifically targeted, the court orders used by the NSA to obtain that information as part of Prism are these general FAA orders, not individualized warrants specific to any individual.
Once armed with these general orders, the NSA is empowered to compel telephone and internet companies to turn over to it the communications of any individual identified by the NSA. The Fisa court plays no role in the selection of those individuals, nor does it monitor who is selected by the NSA.
The NSA's ability to collect and retain the communications of people in the US, even without a warrant, has fuelled congressional demands for an estimate of how many Americans have been caught up in surveillance.
Two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall – both members of the Senate intelligence committee – have been seeking this information since 2011, but senior White House and intelligence officials have repeatedly insisted that the agency is unable to gather such statistics.
Fisa court submissions show broad scope of procedures governing NSA's surveillance of Americans' communication
• Document one: procedures used by NSA to target non-US persons
• Document two: procedures used by NSA to minimise data collected from US persons
Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information "inadvertently" collected from domestic US communications without a warrant.
The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target "non-US persons" under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.
The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and used.
The procedures cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic US communications. The bulk collection of domestic call records, as first revealed by the Guardian earlier this month, takes place under rolling court orders issued on the basis of a legal interpretation of a different authority, section 215 of the Patriot Act.
The Fisa court's oversight role has been referenced many times by Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials as they have sought to reassure the public about surveillance, but the procedures approved by the court have never before been publicly disclosed.
The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.
However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:
• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;
• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine
The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants.
The documents also show that discretion as to who is actually targeted under the NSA's foreign surveillance powers lies directly with its own analysts, without recourse to courts or superiors – though a percentage of targeting decisions are reviewed by internal audit teams on a regular basis.
Since the Guardian first revealed the extent of the NSA's collection of US communications, there have been repeated calls for the legal basis of the programs to be released. On Thursday, two US congressmen introduced a bill compelling the Obama administration to declassify the secret legal justifications for NSA surveillance.
The disclosure bill, sponsored by Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, is a complement to one proposed in the Senate last week. It would "increase the transparency of the Fisa Court and the state of the law in this area," Schiff told the Guardian. "It would give the public a better understanding of the safeguards, as well as the scope of these programs."
Section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act (FAA), which was renewed for five years last December, is the authority under which the NSA is allowed to collect large-scale data, including foreign communications and also communications between the US and other countries, provided the target is overseas.
FAA warrants are issued by the Fisa court for up to 12 months at a time, and authorise the collection of bulk information – some of which can include communications of US citizens, or people inside the US. To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant.
One-paragraph order
One such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order, signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment.
Those procedures state that the "NSA determines whether a person is a non-United States person reasonably believed to be outside the United States in light of the totality of the circumstances based on the information available with respect to that person, including information concerning the communications facility or facilities used by that person".
It includes information that the NSA analyst uses to make this determination - including IP addresses, statements made by the potential target, and other information in the NSA databases, which can include public information and data collected by other agencies.
Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues.
"In the absence of specific information regarding whether a target is a United States person," it states "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States or whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person."
If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US, analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case.
Referring to steps taken to prevent intentional collection of telephone content of those inside the US, the document states: "NSA analysts may analyze content for indications that a foreign target has entered or intends to enter the United States. Such content analysis will be conducted according to analytic and intelligence requirements and priorities."
Details set out in the "minimization procedures", regularly referred to in House and Senate hearings, as well as public statements in recent weeks, also raise questions as to the extent of monitoring of US citizens and residents.
NSA minimization procedures signed by Holder in 2009 set out that once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately. However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones.
The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and the policy states "communications which may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA's ability to filter communications".
Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic – entirely within the US – the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains "significant foreign intelligence information", "evidence of a crime", "technical data base information" (such as encrypted communications), or "information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property".
Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules.
The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria.
A separate section of the same document notes that as soon as any intercepted communications are determined to have been between someone under US criminal indictment and their attorney, surveillance must stop. However, the material collected can be retained, if it is useful, though in a segregated database:
"The relevant portion of the communication containing that conversation will be segregated and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice will be notified so that appropriate procedures may be established to protect such communications from review or use in any criminal prosecution, while preserving foreign intelligence information contained therein," the document states.
In practice, much of the decision-making appears to lie with NSA analysts, rather than the Fisa court or senior officials.
A transcript of a 2008 briefing on FAA from the NSA's general counsel sets out how much discretion NSA analysts possess when it comes to the specifics of targeting, and making decisions on who they believe is a non-US person. Referring to a situation where there has been a suggestion a target is within the US.
"Once again, the standard here is a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States. What does that mean when you get information that might lead you to believe the contrary? It means you can't ignore it. You can't turn a blind eye to somebody saying: 'Hey, I think so and so is in the United States.' You can't ignore that. Does it mean you have to completely turn off collection the minute you hear that? No, it means you have to do some sort of investigation: 'Is that guy right? Is my target here?" he says.
"But, if everything else you have says 'no' (he talked yesterday, I saw him on TV yesterday, even, depending on the target, he was in Baghdad) you can still continue targeting but you have to keep that in mind. You can't put it aside. You have to investigate it and, once again, with that new information in mind, what is your reasonable belief about your target's location?"
The broad nature of the court's oversight role, and the discretion given to NSA analysts, sheds light on responses from the administration and internet companies to the Guardian's disclosure of the PRISM program. They have stated that the content of online communications is turned over to the NSA only pursuant to a court order. But except when a US citizen is specifically targeted, the court orders used by the NSA to obtain that information as part of Prism are these general FAA orders, not individualized warrants specific to any individual.
Once armed with these general orders, the NSA is empowered to compel telephone and internet companies to turn over to it the communications of any individual identified by the NSA. The Fisa court plays no role in the selection of those individuals, nor does it monitor who is selected by the NSA.
The NSA's ability to collect and retain the communications of people in the US, even without a warrant, has fuelled congressional demands for an estimate of how many Americans have been caught up in surveillance.
Two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall – both members of the Senate intelligence committee – have been seeking this information since 2011, but senior White House and intelligence officials have repeatedly insisted that the agency is unable to gather such statistics.
yeah, john mcain labled us (libertarians/anarcho-capitalist/teaparty) all whacko birds lol, well I'm a proud whacko bird.
ron paul was not the best speaker because he often assumes that people are savy with politics and economics.so jumping from subject to subject isn't a problem for him but he loses the public's intrest when he does that.so I can see how it may appear whacko.
but it is the stuf the American pubic desperately needs to listen too.
Ron Paul on Obama's Syria WMD Claim
[YOUTUBEIF]0CgAP_gBEPQ[/YOUTUBEIF]
ron paul was not the best speaker because he often assumes that people are savy with politics and economics.so jumping from subject to subject isn't a problem for him but he loses the public's intrest when he does that.so I can see how it may appear whacko.
but it is the stuf the American pubic desperately needs to listen too.
Ron Paul on Obama's Syria WMD Claim
[YOUTUBEIF]0CgAP_gBEPQ[/YOUTUBEIF]
The problem is that the sheeple believe the US government needs to be able to spy on its people to keep the country safe. This is false. If more citizens thought for themselves and opened up their eyes there would be real demonstrations in the street, not that ineffective Occupy bullshit. I'm talking 1960's civil rights march type chit, Kent State, etc.
The blood of patriots must be spilled to renew the tree of liberty. Gotta break a few eggs to get this omelet right. Too bad most people these days are afraid to even get in the kitchen.
Rbdf
The blood of patriots must be spilled to renew the tree of liberty. Gotta break a few eggs to get this omelet right. Too bad most people these days are afraid to even get in the kitchen.
Rbdf
NSA Whistleblower: NSA Spying On – and Blackmailing – Top Government Officials and Military Officers
Posted on June 20, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...vernment-officials-and-military-officers.html
^ the base (90+%) of the iceberg starts to emerge. the truth is bigger (more of the base of the iceberg to be revealed). the truth is that key top decision makers in most governments of the world are being compromised.
this shit is global !
Posted on June 20, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...vernment-officials-and-military-officers.html
^ the base (90+%) of the iceberg starts to emerge. the truth is bigger (more of the base of the iceberg to be revealed). the truth is that key top decision makers in most governments of the world are being compromised.
this shit is global !
I was trying to find news of the latest Snowden revelations, and I ended up on Al Jazeera. What the fuck is wrong with this country? Al Jazeera defending truth and the American constitution? Should I blame the media? The consumers of said media? The government? Ignorance is no longer a proper excuse, Joe America. You're the laughing stock of the world, pull your head out of your ass!
found some thing new on the guardian website today, seems the Brits have been spying on everyone like a mofo and trading tidbits with NSA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
From the sound of it, what the NSA has been doing, pales in comparison with what GCHQ has been up to.
No surprise here, I said all along, that the "Snoopers charter" is simply to make what they are already doing legal.
GCHQ FTFO
i read that they broadened the scope from terrorism related, to crime too.
you think this is not being abused? think of all the insider trading and all the blackmail you could do if you can just scoop up someones communications. gov agents could blackmail anyone to do pretty much anything.
you think this is not being abused? think of all the insider trading and all the blackmail you could do if you can just scoop up someones communications. gov agents could blackmail anyone to do pretty much anything.
This is a civil rights issue, who will be the next MLK? (Martin Luther King)
If someone can walk me thru how to embed the screen shot of a youtube video I would be much obliged.
Here's one that seems appropriate. It's a little more than 2 minutes
Feds'Deconfliction.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIpAxjPt9U&feature=youtu.be
[YOUTUBEIF]-LIpAxjPt9U[/YOUTUBEIF]
Here's one that seems appropriate. It's a little more than 2 minutes
Feds'Deconfliction.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIpAxjPt9U&feature=youtu.be
[YOUTUBEIF]-LIpAxjPt9U[/YOUTUBEIF]
Last edited by a moderator:
hehe 
some funny shit right there and too true, they go around convincing folks to do attacks, so this scenario is plausible, LOL.
some funny shit right there and too true, they go around convincing folks to do attacks, so this scenario is plausible, LOL.
you want to take the random numbers that are usually toward the middle or end of the link,
-LIpAxjPt9U
in this example they are between 2 symbols
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIpAxjPt9U&feature=youtu.be
(= ) and also (&)
then go to the advanced option to post,
there you will see the youtube symbol click that,
YOUTUBEIF] [/YOUTUBEIF
then paste the random numbers in the middle.
YOUTUBEIF]....-LIpAxjPt9U.....[/YOUTUBEIF
-LIpAxjPt9U
in this example they are between 2 symbols
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIpAxjPt9U&feature=youtu.be
(= ) and also (&)
then go to the advanced option to post,
there you will see the youtube symbol click that,
YOUTUBEIF] [/YOUTUBEIF
then paste the random numbers in the middle.
YOUTUBEIF]....-LIpAxjPt9U.....[/YOUTUBEIF
If you thought PRISM was bad.....meet "BONESAW" and the General who commands all of the information and cyberwarfare systems at the US's disposal. Possibly the most powerful and dangerous man (outside of Bernanke) in the world. One of the secret private contractors that developed "BONESAW" is......... EndGame Systems.
How appropriate. The End Game indeed. WWIII is going to be a wild and wooly one.
Meet The Man In Charge Of America's Secret Cyber Army (In Which "Bonesaw" Makes A Mockery Of PRISM)
How appropriate. The End Game indeed. WWIII is going to be a wild and wooly one.
Meet The Man In Charge Of America's Secret Cyber Army (In Which "Bonesaw" Makes A Mockery Of PRISM)
Last edited:
- Status
