From those of us who haven't been asleep for the last 12 years

[jazzimov]

I remembered most of this happening, but couldn't remember the details. Luckily, Wikipedia held the details in 2 excellent articles. Although I don't always trust Wikipedia, I highly recommend these 2 excellent articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database

From the first article, the first 2 paragraph's:

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping&quot concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. Critics, however, claimed that it was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and their handling of several hot button issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.

During the Obama Administration, the NSA has officially continued operating under the new FISA guidelines.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[4]

(emphasis added)

So, much of the outrage was over the collection of information without court orders and without Congressional oversight.
That was corrected - by "public pressure" (Yes, we CAN make a difference!).

Now, why all the "hate" against DiFi, when she was instrumental in getting this changed and DU used to love her (from the same article):

Three days after news broke about the warrantless wiretapping program, a bipartisan group of Senators—Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, sent a letter dated December 19, 2005 to Judiciary and Intelligence Committees chairmen and ranking members requesting the two committees to "seek to answer the factual and legal questions" about the program.

From the second article:

The United States' National Security Agency (NSA) maintains a database containing hundreds of billions of records of telephone calls made by U.S. citizens from the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, BellSouth (all three now called AT&T), and Verizon.[1]

The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006.[1] It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records.[2] According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[3] As of June 2013, the database is codenamed MARINA and stores the metadata for at least five years.[4] A similar database to MARINA exists for email and its code name is Pinwale.

The records include detailed call information (caller, receiver, date/time of call, length of call, etc.) for use in traffic analysis and social network analysis, but do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls.

So, yes, we have known about this since 2006. Yes, it was egregious at first - but WE changed that. WE got court orders and Congressional oversight. Yes, Obama continued the ADJUSTED Bush policy, after WE got Bush to change it.

What has recently been "leaked" was an actual secret FISC order and slides from a PowerPoint presentation about an internal program that was totally misrepresented. Actually, the leaked FISC order seems to contradict the second misrepresentations - if the PRISM program directly accessed the servers as reported, then why would the FISA Court order even be necessary?

Granted, we need to have a National discussion about these practices and whether or not they are still necessary. Just as we should have a conversation about the AUMF and whether it is still necessary or should be modified. The Patriot Act has undergone several modifications, but it should also be included in the conversation. We just need to be sure WHICH Patriot Act we are talking about and avoid knee-jerk reactions.

[dkf]

1. We've begun to see that congress is no protector of our rights.

Neither party.

[giftedgirl77]

2. this is the new scandal

Everything else is dead in the water & this is number 4. We still have no jobs bill, vets are getting screwed over (I have been waiting 2 years to be medically discharged, I am now legally blind & have MS yea Iraq burnpits) , our government is being held hostage & our infrastructure is crumbling.

I'm not saying this is right but it's damn sure not the worst thing that is wrong right now.

This needs to be addressed but we also need to stay focused on the really big picture as well.

[timdog44]

20. This is one of the things I have

been trying to say, maybe not as eloquently as you, especially in your situation, but there are many more pressing issues. The technology age has yet to be dealt with and needs amending, but you are right, we need to stay focused on the big picture.

[giftedgirl77]

24. Thanks

It's good to know some folks out there can still see the big picture.

[timdog44]

25. You are welcome.

And I do think I see the big picture, just as you do.

[freshwest]

35. I can see the picture of human need and I see you. I hope you get what you need soon.

[wandy]

34. I am compleatly with you. We will fix this, in time...............

We face many problems. We have started to fix some of them. There is much work to do.
How many people are falling through the cracks.
But I guess you know something about that.

[giftedgirl77]

40. yes but I'm lucky

because while it is a struggle with trying to get around & stuff I am still active duty so I still get paid & we are dual military so on days when I can't drive my hubby takes me. But for the most part I have lost my vision, my fine motor skills, have a bit of a cognitive disorder & the list goes on so I'm not real sure what will happen once I get out.

All we can do is hope for the best & do what we can.

[RC]

3. And what has all this data collection gotten us?

How has it made us safer? How many actual, real terrorists has it prevented?

Not much, no, maybe one (not counting FBI stings).

This is our 4th Amendment Rights that are being hacked. Just because a procedure has been set up and a law passed saying they can do this, still does not make this Constitutionally viable.

[frazzled]

5. By the same token, one might ask

What harm has this data collection done to us?

How has it abused anyone's civil rights? How many people have been prosecuted or disappeared because of it?

Not much, no, maybe none (perhaps not counting a few stray FBI questionings).

[HiPointDem]

6. one could ask, but it would be a stupid question for multiple reasons.

[frazzled]

7. It's only stupid if you want to be dogmatic

And prejudge things about which no one (no, not even the great libertarian GG) have very much of a clue.

[HiPointDem]

8. actually, it's not. 'harm' is not the rubric for constitutional rights.

[KoKo]

17. For "Some" that's "Old News" they live in the "NETHER WORLD." (eom)

[jazzimov]

28. Actually, it is old news in the sense that

we have had this conversation before.

But it was noted at the time that it was a temporary conclusion.

so, it is at once "old news" that those of us who had our eyes open at the time were more than aware of. Obama is blameless.

But, it is time to review the AUMF which empowered this act.

Something that, IIRC Obama also called for.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Let's look at The Patriot Act. It has been VERY EFFECTIVE!

..if perpetuating the drug war, and incarcerating record numbers of non-violent drug offenders was the goal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html

If making sure we fill our for-profit prisons with everyone who smokes a joint is the goal of the national security apparatus, then it's been GREAT!!!!!

[nebenaube]

31. every thirty seconds someone is arrested for cannabis...

You don't think SIGINT and a invalid bill of attainder has anything to do with that?

[timdog44]

21. I think the secrecy that goes with the obtaining of info

is the same as revealing what it has accomplished. And that for the reason to not reveal how the info was obtained.

I think all our amendment rights need to be amended as time goes on. The original were written many years ago when some of the things, and actually most of the things we have could not be even conceived of at that time.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. It didn't stop Boston. nt

[jazzimov]

29. Which it would have IF it had been as extensive

as some have tried to portray it here.

[frazzled]

4. See also this timeline

Mass Surveillance in America: A Timeline of Loosening Laws and Practices (published June 7)

http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/surveillance-timeline

[DirkGently]

9. What we don't know, and what Obama promised / hinted we would

... is what records are being collected, from whom, on what basis.

We may suspect that Obama is continuing or worsening the Bush administration's wild interpretations of what was legal, which Bush in turn protected by asserting state secrets privileges, so that no one ever knows who's being watched, for what.

It's double-secret probation. We don't know whether what's being gathered is illegal, because it's illegal to ask. That is the antithesis of free society or democratic government.

No one who is bothered by the continuing issue has been "asleep for 12 years." Dishonest apologists are attempting to make the non-point that egregious, often illegal electronic surveillance somehow doesn't matter because we've known some of it for a while, and / or Obama made it all better. He has not. He has continued the spying and the secrecy, and may have even expanded it.

Obama's Transparency Promise: We're Still Waiting

When President Obama – in one of his first official acts – committed his new administration to an "unprecedented" level of transparency, EFF applauded the change in policy. Likewise, when Attorney General Holder, at the President's direction, issued new guidelines liberalizing agency implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we welcomed it as a "particularly promising development." But we also noted that it remained to be seen whether reality would match the rhetoric as the new policy was applied, particularly in the context of pending lawsuits – several of which EFF is pursuing – that challenge Bush-era decisions to withhold requested information.

Unfortunately, the early indicators are not encouraging. Last week, the Justice Department told a federal judge (PDF) in Washington that the FBI – despite the new Holder FOIA guidelines – will not be altering its previous decision to withhold a substantial amount of information concerning its massive Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW), which the Bureau describes as "the FBI’s single largest repository of operational and intelligence information." The database contains hundreds of millions of records and has been characterized as an "uber-Google."

The FBI's refusal in the IDW case to release even one additional word under the Obama administration's highly-touted transparency policy is troubling for several reasons. First, Attorney General Holder expressly directed that the new FOIA guidelines "should be taken into account and applied" in pending lawsuits, and the judge in the IDW case had ordered the Bureau to say "whether [its] position has changed" in light of the new Obama policy. So the FBI is clearly and unequivocally saying that the Holder guidelines don't change a thing.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obamas-transparency-

What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata—the details about phone calls, without the actual voice—isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:

They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters

[jazzimov]

11. Thank you!

But, I have to take issue with your repudiation of the folks who have been "asleep for 12 years." Obviously, I was talking about the folks who have been trying to snark their way out of saying that this something new - when it obviously is not.

I will agree with some caveats to this statement:

It's double-secret probation. We don't know whether what's being gathered is illegal, because it's illegal to ask. That is the antithesis of free society or democratic government.

Although not entirely true, that does seem to be the crux of the issue - whether or not by passing the AUMF, Congress actually granted the President War Powers or not.

Most of the problems I had with Bush's original program had to do with NSL (National Security Letters) in which there was no court order and no oversight. WE changed that, via the outrage that WE produced.

Unfortunately, this is the modern world. We seem to have no problem turning over all of our information to private companies (does anyone ever read the Terms of Service, or just scroll down to click I Accept to download new programs/apps ?)

Is it "legal"? This has been debated extensively, and the program has been changed until the current answer is YES! Is it "morally right"? well, that's something that will always be up to debate.

[loyalsister]

42. Thank you for some perspective

I once had a roommate who gave phone number (listed under my name) to someone in prison. My instant thought was that there is a lot of information attached to my phone number and I changed immediately after she moved. We do indeed willingly give out personal information all the time.
The restaurants I order out have my preferences listed with my phone # which is listed with my address. I have no fear that someone will take that information and try to rob me.

I think the outrage is this is a much about of modernization as it is with government activity.

[Cha]

10. Thanks for the reality post, jazz

[jazzimov]

13. Thanks for everything you have tried to do!

I appreciate everything you have done to try to bring this forum back to reality.

It seems that work has a long way to go!

I like facts. I don't like spin.

[Cha]

18. I know you do..

I like that about you.

Neverending job fighting the spin on the intertubes. Great to have you aboard!

And, thank you, jazz.

[cantbeserious]

12. You Yourself Said You Didn't Trust WikiPedia - Why Should I Trust Obama Or This Government

Or the myriad apologists out to defend him and the surveillance state?

[jazzimov]

14. Record. nt.

[cantbeserious]

23. Governments Should Fear Their Citizens - Wonder Who Said That? - I'll Stand With Jefferson

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Thomas Jefferson

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

15. You left one out, blanket surveillance of ALL digital and phone comm

There are other concerns, too.

But the big issue now is the unconstitutional recording of ALL, American, communications.

The gov is claiming that they don't do that with American communications but the whistle blowers claim that that is not the case.

Hopefully that helps the deeply partisan people here understand why this is still a big deal.

[KoKo]

16. Hell Yeah! CHECK IT OUT...and get rid of CNN!

[stupidicus]

19. http://epic.org/2013/06/epic-to-congress-verizon-surve-1.html

eom

[Luminous Animal]

26. Yes. And Greenwald has been writing about the surveillance state since 2006

And he will continue to write about it as new information is revealed.

New information added to old is a good things.

[jazzimov]

36. Fuck Greenwald.

He has a personal agenda. I trust nothing he has to say.

[Luminous Animal]

37. Oh! You know him personally? Say hi to him for me!

[snappyturtle]

27. I assume the following shaded area is directly from you:

What has recently been "leaked" was an actual secret FISC order and slides from a PowerPoint presentation about an internal program that was totally misrepresented. Actually, the leaked FISC order seems to contradict the second misrepresentations - if the PRISM program directly accessed the servers as reported, then why would the FISA Court order even be necessary?

----------------------------------------------

Can you tell me how the internal program was misrepresented? OR, who says it is? OR a link?

Adherence to the FISA court order could be a useful facade because before the leak we had nary a hint of direct access to the servers. So they could have been using it to keep up appearances. imho

[jeff47]

33. It was misrepresented in two ways.

(Not the OP, but here's my opinion for what it's worth)

First, the claim was that PRISM was installed on Facebook, Google and other's servers. This is apparently false.

Second, the claim was that PRISM was collecting everything on those sites. This is apparently false - it's collecting non-US-person data. Non-US-Person means people who are not US citizens and not located in US territory or US custody. The Constitution doesn't apply to non-US-persons - the US doesn't have to guarantee a speedy trial to people in jail in Swaziland.

From what has been released, my guess is PRISM is snooping the Internet links as they enter the US. For example, a person in Hong Kong makes an update to their Facebook page, and the NSA takes a copy from one of the fiber optic cables that enters the US from the Pacific.

[snappyturtle]

39. See this is what gets me. When you say "apparently false"...by whom?

I remember seeing in the last day or so a screen shot of a slide presentation
that was very plain.....and what about citizens who e--mail home from a foreign
country?

To me this story is a mess and a lot of he/said she/said sort of explanations. Guess
I'll wait and see what comes out in the wash. Thanks for your opinion and time.

[jeff47]

41. That presentation just said they got the information.

It does not say how.

People initially assumed that meant the NSA had software installed on these companies's servers, largely because that made it more outrageous - now all these companies are conspiring with the NSA!!!

But that's not the only way to get the data.

and what about citizens who e--mail home from a foreign country?

Could be filtered out pretty easily. Email is encoded in a standard way, and they could very easily determine it was sent from a US person. And since it's entering the country, the government could claim it was similar in concept to a customs inspection as long as they did not retain the email.

[snappyturtle]

43. Oh boy! Are you OK with this? I don't think the NSA should have the data period

no matter how they attained it nor do I think they should be inspecting our
e-mail "overseas baggage". If I'm a suspect let them get a specific warrant.
imho & thanks.

[jeff47]

44. You have to remember there's no suspect

We're talking about gathering intelligence, not conducting an investigation. And the Constitution doesn't apply to the non-US persons who's data is being collected.

[snappyturtle]

45. Intelligence? Come on....the gov't has records for my social security info since I was a

teenager (I'm 65), all my IRS filings, my birth certificate, my passport info, voting etc....that's ENOUGH! There may be no crime YET but if in the future someone I've had contact with is investigated I can be 'mined' and drawn into an investigation. NO.

(I know that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-US persons. Collect away.)

[jeff47]

46. And those bits of data aren't part of these programs.

You have to keep in mind there's two programs that have been leaked.

The first one, Prism, is collecting internet data from non-US persons. That fits very comfortably within what intelligence agencies are supposed to be doing.

The second one is the phone metadata program. In that case, it appears they're storing the data because the phone companies do not. Each company keeps the data for different amounts of time, from 3 months to 5 years to "we have no policy to delete the data".

It appears that the metadata program is intended to just collect the data, and then use it in the wake of another attack. Without a "starting point", it's difficult to see how the metadata would be useful - there's just too much data. Any queries that don't have a starting point are going to have too many false positives to be useful.

but if in the future someone I've had contact with is investigated I can be 'mined' and drawn into an
investigation.

How is that different now that technology is involved?

Let's go all horrifically sterotypical, and pretend you play Bingo every Tuesday night with a large group of people. Then one of your fellow Bingo players commits a crime. The investigation will reveal where they spent every Tuesday, and the powers that be are going to ask you about this person.

How is that fundimentally different than the powers that be coming to you because you talked to the person on the phone frequently?

[snappyturtle]

47. Good grief....you spent about half of your reply stating what I've all ready said

(in so many words). They all ready have the means to investigate. In your Bingo example they talk to people and get my name......they didn't pre-mine it andinvade my privacy just in case it needs to come forward after the commission and on going suscipions come to light. They don't need what they set up at our expense both in dollars and loss of privacy. This is sort of like the pre-emptive war doctrine of bush and his cadre.
--------------------------------------

It appears that the metadata program is intended to just collect the data, and then use it in the wake of another attack

If it doesn't prevent the attack????? how is it keeping us more secure which is a big premise being promoted by pro-data mining folks.

[boston bean]

32. 12 years to be awake is no small feat!

I hope you can get some rest soon!

[Coyotl]

38. Deja DU via Google Search: "L. Coyote" spying site:democraticunderground.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22L.+Coyote%22+spying+site:democraticunderground.com

About 45,300 results (0.18 seconds)

L. Coyote Mon Mar-12-07 10:51 AM
Mar. 12 Daily Impeachment News: post high crimes and misdemeanor news here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x393437

L. Coyote Mon Jun-23-08 05:07 PM
AT&T & NSA are Spying On ALL Internet Traffic
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x150714

Follow link above for the other 45,298!!