General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”
-snip-
Some explanation up front: I spent seven years investigating the national-security systems and policies established in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks for my book 500 Days. I learned a fair amount about the data-mining programs of the N.S.A. and wrote about it. I summarized those findings in my last post. However, now it has become obvious to me that I need to go further than I did in my book, at least in hopes of calming things down. When discussing errors, I’m going to mention “reports” regarding news articles, but I’m not going to identify them—the last thing I want is for this to become a back-and-forth between reporters.
First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don’t know what they’re talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Those rules are very specific. The targeting can only be of foreign nationals outside the United States. These are the restrictions:
There are many other restrictions and requirements on how data can be properly obtained and used in the PRISM system. But since this doesn’t require some secret, confidential source to understand, I invite you to click on the link I provided above and read through the law.
However, targeting is not done willy-nilly. The system is subject to review by the judiciary, the Congress, and the executive branch. Both the attorney general and the director of the N.S.A. must make a determination that they “reasonably believe” a person they wish to target is, in fact, a foreign national outside the country whose activities raise national-security concerns for the United States. That standard, of course, is lower than probable cause, which is a small part of why any information obtained can’t be used in a criminal case.
The rest: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
aquart
(69,014 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)why is establishment Washington freaking out about it's public revelation?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)lots of folks have been freaking out about this
pnwmom
(108,979 posts)on U.S. citizens.
And because stealing and releasing classified documents -- and claiming to have thousands more of them -- is not an insignificant crime.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)is it secret or not?
pnwmom
(108,979 posts)Washington responded.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal
First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don’t know what they’re talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Those rules are very specific. The targeting can only be of foreign nationals outside the United States. These are the restrictions:
[The N.S.A.] (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
There are many other restrictions and requirements on how data can be properly obtained and used in the PRISM system. But since this doesn’t require some secret, confidential source to understand, I invite you to click on the link I provided above and read through the law.
However, targeting is not done willy-nilly. The system is subject to review by the judiciary, the Congress, and the executive branch. Both the attorney general and the director of the N.S.A. must make a determination that they “reasonably believe” a person they wish to target is, in fact, a foreign national outside the country whose activities raise national-security concerns for the United States. That standard, of course, is lower than probable cause, which is a small part of why any information obtained can’t be used in a criminal case.
SNIP
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)I stopped really listening after that.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Section 702 article 5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gwzrg4ex8ini2q3/prismblogfixes1.doc
aquart
(69,014 posts)
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)that has been pointed out as wrong or false. After all, if one stops reading the second one disagree with something then gaining knowledge is severely curtailed.
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)And sadly, from the looks of it, all too true.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)because if it wasn't secret then it would not have TOP SECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN in the top left corner. And if it wasn't secret, then why is the Justice Department looking to prosecute Snowden?
Saying that it's not secret is ridiculous and does nothing for your argument.
?hash=ZGV0AQLlZ2&upscale=1
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)insults the intelligence of the American people & does not respect our concerns.
No it's not a program--it's a data collection system. A many-tentacled system. OK.
So was Prism secret or not, before Snowden? 1). Yes 2). No 3). Maybe
I also sense Revisionism.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)KnR
Cha
(297,275 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)
.. it's a nice fit for their agendas.
There's no dissuading.. facts are irrelevant.
Thank you for the interesting link, JaneyVee
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Anyone doesn't think the media isn't going to do the bidding of the conservative billionaire owners, needs to get their head out of the koch litter box.
Cha
(297,275 posts)i.e. bring Obama down? 
magellan
(13,257 posts)...metadata on all its customers to the NSA.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Metadata on Americans. Specific data on foreigners using American companies for communication.
It's not the same. Do you want people to believe it's the same?
magellan
(13,257 posts)Why are you defending the capture of information that can easily be abused? Or don't you remember the demise of a private Yahoo Group you were once on?
"Hey, things happen. And a bunch of FBI guys didn't spend weeks reading 10,000 soap opera emails. Because that would never happen here."
Correlation? Trigger words?
You think just because it's got the veneer of legality now it's okay?
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..Obama so much as the corporate-military-spy bureaucracy he inherited, kinda like the economy, of 8 years of Cheney. this monster would have eventually reared its head again, and frankly i bet this renewed publicity and outrage over a lingering problem comes as something like good news to him, if not his advisers.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Look, I'm sick and tired of hearing this "collecting" shit and "targeting" shit from you pro NSA types. WHATEVER the program is called, the FACT is that it is compiling and STORING a database with every communication, American or otherwise, in it.
The parsing of words, the REDEFINITION of certain words, such as "collecting" and "targeting" has not escaped the rest of us. YOUR GUY, Clapper, admitted as much. He said that what they were doing was like having a library, and the "collecting" was only done when they picked a book out and READ what was inside of it. That's a totally different meaning for "collecting" than what is commonly known.
God only knows what he means by "targeting," but I'm sure it's not pretty.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)the FACT is that it is compiling and STORING a database with every communication, American or otherwise, in it.
No it is not. The very idea that they would be doing that is insane... which apparently isn't much of a barrier to certain people insisting on claiming it's happening anyway.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It doesn't support your claim.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You must have missed this little tidbit: "Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy."
You see, I do ACTUALLY read my own links all the way through. I know what they say. Sorry you don't.
"All FORMS" =/= "All Communications"
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)But I've got faith in your ability to deal with it.
Edited to add: You know, it's really hard to believe that you can take a sentence with the words in it: "all forms of communication" and reply to it that "all forms of communication does not equal all communication."
I'm flabbergasted.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I for one am all befuddled that even after having it spelled out for you you are still having difficulty comprehending basic English.
Let's say there only existed 3 forms of communications, just as an illustration. Text, e-mail, phone.
I build a system capable of storing a text, or an e-mail, or a phone call. I have now built a system capable of storing all FORMS of communication.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN I JUST BUILT A SYSTEM THAT IS STORING EVERY TEXT, E-MAIL AND PHONE CALL EVERY PERSON ANYWHERE ACTUALLY MAKES.
ALL FORMS OF =/= ALL
pnwmom
(108,979 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He implies he is something more than a guy who writes for magazines and movies. He has never worked in government, information technology or the military.
All these people who claim to know what happened in meetings they are not part of, meetings which those who are part of them can not speak of. So interesting.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)thucythucy
(8,066 posts)It gives a pretty clear answer to your question.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)thucythucy
(8,066 posts)"Because PRISM was being falsely portrayed as collecting information on U.S. citizens.
And because stealing and releasing classified documents -- and claiming to have thousands more of them -- is not an insignificant crime."
Best wishes,
Thucy
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)thucythucy
(8,066 posts)-snip-
Some explanation up front: I spent seven years investigating the national-security systems and policies established in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks for my book 500 Days. I learned a fair amount about the data-mining programs of the N.S.A. and wrote about it. I summarized those findings in my last post. However, now it has become obvious to me that I need to go further than I did in my book, at least in hopes of calming things down. When discussing errors, I’m going to mention “reports” regarding news articles, but I’m not going to identify them—the last thing I want is for this to become a back-and-forth between reporters.
First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don’t know what they’re talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Those rules are very specific. The targeting can only be of foreign nationals outside the United States. These are the restrictions:
(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
There are many other restrictions and requirements on how data can be properly obtained and used in the PRISM system. But since this doesn’t require some secret, confidential source to understand, I invite you to click on the link I provided above and read through the law.
However, targeting is not done willy-nilly. The system is subject to review by the judiciary, the Congress, and the executive branch. Both the attorney general and the director of the N.S.A. must make a determination that they “reasonably believe” a person they wish to target is, in fact, a foreign national outside the country whose activities raise national-security concerns for the United States. That standard, of course, is lower than probable cause, which is a small part of why any information obtained can’t be used in a criminal case.
The rest: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)@cordyc "I'm glad to see other other computer professionals are being vocal, even if they're taking the other side. The country needs a debate on this issue informed by those of us with technological skills.
I, myself, have about a decade of experience in data mining as an academic. Specifically, I work in social network analysis doing precisely the same kind of analysis that PRISM almost certainly uses on the back end. This is one of the most technologically informed articles I've read, but it doesn't persuade me to change my opinion: PRISM is awful.
Let me be clear - I disagree with the author of this article here: "I, as a civil libertarian, have no problem with data-mining programs." As a civil libertarian myself with a long record of voting as a democrat, I find PRISM grossly offensive and immoral. Immoral, not illegal... although the DNI's testimony about domestic spying a few months ago does sound like it could be perjury. To quote The Daily Show: "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
The issue here is, of course, privacy. While I'm no lawyer and only an armchair philosopher, I would argue that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if there is a reasonable expectation that no one would view the information being transmitted. Anyone, not anything. There is about as much reason to think that someone would watch my packets in transit as there is to think that someone is hanging out on a telephone pole, listening to my call. Sure, an event like that could happen that would expose my telephone call to a third party... but that does not mean I do not have a reasonable expectation pertaining to the content of my phone call - or even that I'm making a phone call. By analogy, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the packets I send out.
I have a hard time believing that the secrecy apparatus is needed either. There should be no such thing as a secret court beyond a grand jury. There should be no classified interpretations of laws. There should be no classified court rulings. I may have too much common sense, but I have a hard time seeing how the pre-9/11 framework for getting warrants can't be used. The only argument I can see is this: ZOMG! THE TERRORISTS WILL KNOW WE'RE ON TO THEM. Well, that's not out of the realm of possibility, no. However, the FBI seems to do a pretty good job when it comes to catching non-terrorist criminals and that fact makes this argument kind of difficult to buy.
Honestly, though, the thing that pisses me most off about this scandal is that it proves the idiotic Tea Party folks correct - the government really is acting like Big Brother."
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)I just think it's important we have this discussion, to the best of our ability, based on facts and accurate information, and not on speculation, misinformation, and near-hysteria. I think we need to define the problem as best we can, identify what needs to be done, and do it.
And so not conflating different programs, admitting that Snowden might not be perhaps the hero some see him to be, and understanding there is nuance and complexity even here, will make it a better debate.
That said, I have early work tomorrow and need to get some sleep. It's been good talking with you.
Good night, and best wishes,
Thucy
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but the hysteria is probably related to the very real fear that we will never get the facts. We fear we will continue to be treated like children, hushed up and lied to--with no redress in this situation of massive intrusion that we are shocked to learn the extent of.
Conflating different programs--PRISM is not an official "program"--it's a system of secret data storage and retrieval. No need to conflate or inflate it. It's bad enough.
Best wishes to you. 
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)"And because stealing and releasing classified documents -- and claiming to have thousands more of them -- is not an insignificant crime."
Do you disagree?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Either he leaked some big secret.... or he didn't. If everyone already knew everything, then why classify it?
People break the law for good reasons from time to time. I don't know him so I don't know for sure his reasons.
I just find it odd, that with so many other major crimes out there that Holder is not prosecuting, they choose to go after a guy who you are saying didn't leak anything that everyone didn't already know..........
They are building a billion dollar plus super computer complex. Why is that?
None of this makes any sense at all.
I had hoped when Obama was elected that he would indeed put a stop to the illegal snooping as he said so many times in his campaign speeches.
I'm waiting to see how this all plays out. But I think there needs to be some major changes in how things are done. We have a right to privacy.
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)the Chinese press is now saying Snowden is giving or threatening to give the Chinese lists of specific websites that were targeted by the NSA, and the rates of success on hacking into each of those sites, and the precise dates those sites were targeted. If this is true, this will be a windfall for Chinese intelligence, telling them both our strengths and weaknesses, outlining our ability to target certain sites, and enabling them to go back to sites that were hacked to try to figure out exactly how we did it. Keep in mind the Chinese do exactly the same to us, and part of our hacking of them is to try to figure out their abilities and plans to get at our defense and intelligence data. This has been happening for years, if not more than a decade, and every analysis I've seen points to this as a major challenge to US defense capability.
As for all this already being known: here's an analogy you might or might not find cogent. During World War II, the Germans knew--everybody knew--that the Allies were going to land somewhere in France sometime in the first half of 1944. What Snowden has allegedly done is like saying, yes, we're coming, early on the morning of June 6, landing at Utah, Omaha, Juno and Gold beaches on the southeast corner of the Normandy penninsula. So get ready, here we come!
If these allegations do turn out to be accurate, wouldn't you agree that this is, at the very least, a potentially illegal act? Which is why the Attorney General of the United States might be interested in possibly prosecuting this guy?
The snooping on Americans, from what I've seen, is technically legal under FISA. But I agree, this is way too unsettling not to be investigated. Congress, for instance, seems clearly to have botched its responsibility to oversee this activity, and the FISA courts, from what I can see, have been little more than a rubber stamp for NSA requests.
We need an entire overhaul of this system. My preference would be to repeal most if not all of the Patriot Act, and start over without all the post 9-11 hysteria that was used to push through the first act. Also, FISA needs to be brought up to date to reel in some of these abuses.
Not to mention, I'd like to see tougher controls on how private corporations use our data and metadata.
We do indeed have a right to privacy. The question is: after all the hysterics and misinformation of the past week, where do we go from here?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)A hero to the people for shining a light on where our government is overstepping and a traitor to the government for doing the same thing.
I think what he did is very subjective.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Right now the leading explanation is that the initial reports about PRISM were overblown. The feds do not appear to have unfettered access to Silicon Valley companies' servers. They do serve up warrants, which these firms do comply with. I'd be very curious as to how often they do this and how many people are covered-- are we talking about dozens, hundreds, thousands?
However, PRISM is only one part of the NSA story. The other, the collection of every American's phone records, is undisputed and by far the more concerning one to me, if only it shows what kind of reach the NSA wants.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Pay special attention about the sophisticated methodology used to distinguish between Foreign and American "targets".
Enjoy!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/good-news--you-re-not-paranoid---nsa-oversight
"It's a coin toss plus 1%."
E-yup. They're not targeting Americans. Except no one has answered my comment above about the court order for Verizon to turn over all its customers' metadata to the NSA. Doesn't sound like foreign intelligence collecting to me.
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)to Verizon. Under the Verizon warrant, the NSA is indeed collecting metadata on Americans, at least that's what it looks like to me. But it looks as though the initial reports on PRISM were overblown.
As for the Verizon warrant, it is what it is: metadata being stored in much the same way private corporations store your metadata all the time. Except the NSA, in this instance anyway, is only requesting phone metadata: numbers called and length of time the calls lasted.
According to the warrant: "Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2510(8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."
If the NSA wants that particular information, another warrant is needed. Also, the warrant is time limited, it expires next month, at which point another warrant will also be needed.
Corporations of course have access to far more of your metadata than that, and if they analyze it and decide you might be a reasonable bet for, say, needing Viagra, they'll send you a pop-up or e-mail advertising their product. Happens all the time, and sad to say, they don't need a warrant to gather than information at all. And since most websites, when you visit them, have in their terms of use a proviso (generally in very small print) allowing them to sell your info to other companies, you generally have very little control over who gets your information. That is, unless you don't want to buy on-line, use Google to search, or visit websites you find interesting.
Personally, I think the Verizon warrant is about three bridges too far, and it and similar warrants need to be scaled back considerably. On the other hand, a month or so ago there was all kinds of public outrage that the NSA didn't do more to stop the Boston bombing. Why, the critics wanted to know, weren't the bombers flagged, why weren't their phones tapped?
Which is to say, if another 9-11 type attack happens on Obama's watch, I suspect at least some of the same people who are now shocked, shocked! that a spy agency is actually spying, will be outraged, outraged! that more wasn't done to protect the American people. Even if Verizon type warrants actually do nothing to genuinely protect us, the critics will howl that Obama failed to protect the homeland.
So for the Obama administration it's damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I hope Obama--and the rest of us--are able to find some way through this particularly nasty minefield.
magellan
(13,257 posts)What is the NSA doing with the metadata? Do you know?
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)is that PRISM is a program specifically designed to target suspicious foreign nationals. It is a separate department of the NSA, something like the rape investigation unit of a local police force is separate from the burglary or auto theft units.
As for what the NSA is doing with the metadata, the story is they are running it through a computer program that is supposed to flag potentially troubling relationships or correlations. For instance, when a particular phone number in Boston receives and makes long and multiple calls to a phone number in Chechnya connected to radical elements hostile to the United States, or implicated in prior terrorist activities. If and when such a correlation is made, the NSA then requests another warrent to actually tap those lines, or otherwise target the suspected party or parties, for closer scrutiny.
This, at any rate, is what I've been able to glean from OPs here and articles I've read elsewhere.
Of course, what makes all of this so unsettling is the secrecy. On the one hand, if you're trying to roll up a terrorist cell in the US--say, one that's determined to fly airliners into buildings--you don't want to tip off the suspects that you're on to them. On the other hand, all this secrecy makes all these programs ripe for serious and repeated abuses.
The question, again, is how do we find a balance?
And I for one have no idea at the moment how we might be able to do that.
magellan
(13,257 posts)The court order was for all the records. And all of that data is being run through their program to find correlation, not just some of it. And I'm sure it doesn't stop with Verizon.
There was a report a few days ago that just by entering one digit in a phone number wrong, an analyst called up a huge number of records on Americans they shouldn't have. They had to report this and were ordered to destroy the records. But what if someone hadn't reported it? Or what if it's done intentionally? Clearly they have virtually instant access to a lot of extraneous information, and that can be abused. It's silly to think it won't happen, considering the number of people involved and the fact that it's being done by private government contractors.
I presume the same goes for our email data, and whatever else they have.
There are many worrying angles to this. But the essence of it for me is that it's a clear affront to the 4th amendment. When I sign up for a phone or email account, I'm entering into a willing agreement with those specific entities permission to have my personal information. Those agreements come with privacy policies. I've never seen one that includes sharing my data with the NSA, who apparently go on to share it with private contractors and intelligence agencies the world over. There's an expectation of privacy. Without that there's a definite chilling effect.
We went through this with Bush**. I in no way expected such fishing expeditions under Obama.
Balance? Instead we should start by demanding the snooping doesn't include anything that infringes on our rights.
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)is for domestic calls as well as foreign. But this is different from PRISM, which deals only with foreign numbers. My understanding is that the standards applied to PRISM surveillance are less stringent that those applied to domestic FISA warrants. The initial reports made it seem as though the PRISM standards for tapping and recording actual conversations were being applied to the Verizon metadata warrant, which isn't the case. Hence all the rage about "listening to millions of phone lines" or whatever.
"Those agreements come with privacy policies..." And I suspect that, if you look at the fine print of any agreement you sign with any telecom company, you will find a clause that says something to the effect that "the provider is obligated to respond to warrants issued by federal and state courts...." No contract you sign with anyone will ever supersede a duly issued court ordered warrant, and, like it or not, the warrant for the Verizon metadata falls under that category.
And any "expectation of privacy" took a big hit with the creation of the internet. The fact is that every post you make (including those on DU), every web site you visit, is logged somewhere: at some corporate data base or other, and this information is sold, shared, passed along to a variety of entities, generally for commercial reasons. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. For the most part, Americans seem to have surrendered some of their right to privacy for the convenience of shopping on line, or doing internet searches as opposed to physically going to a library or using the old Yellow Pages. Every purchase you make on line, every web search you do is part of somebody's record. Indeed, every time you use a credit card, take money out of an account using an ATM, or use an Easy-pass card to get on or off a highway, your information is logged. It's naive to think otherwise. I've heard very little in all this discussion about corporate use of our data, which to me is perhaps as large a problem as government intrusion. It certainly is more ubiquitous, and considerably less regulated.
One other miscellaneous item. According to a news report I heard yesterday on one of the national news broadcasts, out of all the warrants issued under FISA these past years, only 300 phone numbers have actually been further examined by the NSA.
As for the feds using metadata, and "fishing" -- I generally agree. But while people have "demanded the snooping doesn't...infringe on our rights" people have also demanded that the administration do everything legally possible to prevent more terrorist attacks in the USA. How we balance those two demands is the crux of the issue.
Personally, as I've said before, I'd like to see the Patriot Act repealed, and FISA substantially amended to provide much greater accountability and transparency. The Patriot Act in particular was enacted during the wave of hysteria that followed 9-11, and the discussion we're having now should have happened then. Perhaps another Church Committee style investigation would do the job, but I don't see how, at this point, we're going to get from here to there.
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)Good to see some actual information on all this.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of hooey. The rules say this, the rules say that, but there is no one to police the rules. You say there is judicial review and I say bullcrap. The judges rubber stamp whatever they are asked to stamp. You say that there is Congressional oversight. What a joke. What can Congress do except change the law? A committee gets briefed in secret. They are not allowed to tell anyone what they learned. How is that oversight?
But if you feel secure, I guess that's what is important.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)wrongly because the record would show that they never obtained a warrant, and if they did then it must comply with the 4th Amendment as stated in section 702 article 5.
ETA: I agree we need to have this conversation, and if laws were broken then they need to be held responsible.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the 4th amendment have been stymied by the government because of secrecy.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)because of all the secrecy, how do we really know what is being done with our data?
I guess I still believe it should be our personal data, though it's obvious that it isn't.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You peek at his meta-data which apparently is considered by many as harmless. Let's say that you find out that he seems to contact a certain prostitute often. Now you have a couple of options. Give him a call and explain the benefit of his cooperation, or find a way to "legally" find out about the prostitute and expose him.
My fear is that our government (owned largely by big money) is building a spy machine that will be easy to use to control the 99%. Now you might have faith in the current administration, but that can change for the worse.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)It would make it so much easier to find your posts.
And some of what you have been writing about lately is soooo interesting and soooo necessary to quell the cacophony of lament that has been going on here at the DU these last 2 weeks or so.
It doesn't seem to matter to some people how many times they are told that the PRISM system is not what they originally thought it was.
While others, who had no idea what it was, have stopped screaming about it over the course of 10 days or so.
What you, steveleser, Tex4Obama, and ProSense have done for the last 2 weeks is outstanding.
It's amazing, in fact.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)is "not what we thought it was?"
We are told that by whom? You & buddies?
I haven't seen anything that is convincing. Have you got a link to anything definitive (something better than the Vanity Fair article, which is one guy's condescending opinion).
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)How do I know what you have seen and what you have not seen?
That's seriously funny stuff right there.
"I see nuffffin'."
You sound like Sgt. Schultz.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)where you get your information to back up your statement:
"It doesn't seem to matter to some people how many times they are told that the PRISM system is not what they originally thought it was."
How do you know this? Who is the authority that is saying the PRISM system is not what we thought it was? I've read more than most people about this and I can't find the reference or source for that argument. Link? Some blog or other?
Simple Question. Hold the snark.
What convinces you that you know what the PRISM system is?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)call made by every American every single day and take notes and gossip about it for fun and arrest you for whatever you said to whoever you talked to?
As if anybody gives a shit what you said to your best friend or your relative or your boss. Jesus fucking Christ. Are people just pretending they're interesting enough or important enough for somebody to pay attention to them for something besides getting them to buy crap? Is that what this is?
None of us are important enough or interesting enough for anybody to spy on. The only strangers who give a flying fuck about what we're saying and watching and reading online are the ones who want to sell us stuff we don't need. And they track us all over the place because our MONEY is interesting.
For the government to open the stored data they have to prove to the FISA court that we citizens are part of a terrorist group or are planning a terrorist attack. They cannot open the data to prove the need for the warrant. They already have to have the proof.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
OK, nothing to see here.....is Jerseylicious on?
I understand the technology a little better than your "Data Mining for Dummies" lecture. No, I don't think they care about my ordinary conversations. But that is so far from the point it's laughable.
And if you believe that secret courts protect you, well that's weird. I haven't found the courts in general to protect much of anything I care about. The Bushites, Rumsfeld, Alexander, Cheney--the hijackers who railroaded this through--you trust them?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)It is, apparently, about you:
"I've read more than most people about this"
"I understand the technology a little better than your "Data Mining for Dummies" lecture."
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)That's so lame I haven't got time to kick yer butt.
You and your buddy did not answer my simple, reasonable question. Ya got nuthin.
I repeat--who or what told us that PRISM is "not what we thought it to be?"
PRISM is all that we ever imagined it to be. That is the problem. And you know it.
If you reply, I'll just repeat my question which has not been answered, so don't bother.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Confirmation of hypothesis.
Thank you for your contribution.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Seems the default for some is that everything my president or party does is perfect and anyone that thinks otherwise should shut up.
They appear to hate transparency. If the admin has nothing to hide then why worry about transparency.
Transparency is essential for democracy and secrecy is essential for authoritarian rule.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and we should not shut up about it. But instead they want to neutralize us in order to save Obama's reputation or some such misguided intent. This actually supports our political enemies. I guess they don't see that.
By criticizing him we give Obama an opportunity to help the situation, to investigate and dismantle these government policies and programs that he did not create but has upheld. Give him a chance to help to do what's right here. Then we'll see what he's really all about. If our criticism makes him hold onto his position even more, then we need to see that.
Much to be learned and gained by voicing our opinion strongly. Much to be lost by not doing that. The stakes go far beyond Obama's term.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"My sim has a genie lamp and he used his first wish and the genie went back to the lamp to rest yet it is over a sim week later and the only option for the lamp is return to Genie to lamp which cancels itself immediately.
According to some code that I was looking at, it should be 7 hours. I haven't has the chance to confirm that though.
Re: Genies: How long do they have to rest before granting another wish?
I think it may be affected by whether they are in the lamp or not (?) Not positive though.
-------------
Agree--the genie's out, and we can blame Snowden for that or we can blame those who perpetrated this outrageous scam on us in the first place.
But one thing's for sure, genie lamps get opened. And nothing is ever the same again.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)nt
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)They can't target you, but they can read your e-mail when they target others. And they can't use that against you, except if they think you're doing something wrong. To say that this means they're not spying on American's is like saying SuperPACs are fine because they can't coordinate with candidates.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/obama-verizon-cell-phone
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)tells me to believe.
Fuck, people are stupid.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)for exercising my 1st Amendment rights, who has seen FOIA documentation that DHS, FBI, and the rest of the acronym agencies were spying upon us from day one and sharing information with each and =and with corporations= such as the ones we righteously target, I'd say your point is absolutely moot. They do whatever they want whenever they want and they lie about it as they go (they denied spying upon Occupy for the longest).
Then the FBI started offering bomb-making materials to Occupiers in Cleveland, taking political prisoners in Chicago (the No-NATO five), threatening grand jury resistors in the PNW with jail time, cops throwing around felonies as they wished (must have been ordered to)...freedom is gone, even if it is to stand up and say "change this, it's broken". The message is very clear: go home and shut up or else. This force and threat of force against the civilian population, especially for political purposes, falls under the "patriot act" and FBI's definitions of domestic terrorism.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." —Voltaire