Jerrold Nadler Does NOT Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls

[JaneyVee]

-snip-

Since the scandal broke, Nadler has walked back his comments in a statement. "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," the New York Democrat told Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski.

Seeing the full conversation reveals a slightly different picture than McCullugh was trying push forward. The FBI director testified that PRISM mostly works exactly like we've been told in the weeks since this scandal broke. An unclassified document obtained by Reuters claimed NSA officials looked at raw information for fewer than 300 telephone numbers in 2012. On Saturday, the Associated Press reported any domestic phone information collected by PRISM is stored in a secure server that requires a special warrant to access, supporting Mueller's testimony.

The rest: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

[arcane1]

1. Good to know!

I think there has been too much confusion in all of this, getting different things honestly mixed-up, and unfortunately the mix-ups can spread like wildfire.

[OilemFirchen]

2. "Seeing the full conversation reveals a slightly different picture than McCullugh was trying push...

forward."

McCullugh was trying to paint a picture? Say it ain't so!

[BenzoDia]

3. k&r

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The exchange in the House tells a slightly different story

as in they are...

And they want now HEARINGS... not that under the current SYSTEM inconvenient hearings will actually happen.

The Empire is what it is.

[DCBob]

5. funny how the critics jumped all over this story before it was confirmed.

[randome]

6. 300, 300 million, what's the difference, they're still spying on all of us all the time!

I know because a guy in Hong Kong told me.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Savannahmann]

7. Logically, we have to ask a question

Do we think that 4 million TS clearance holders are just sitting around playing chess on their computers waiting for a warrant to be issued? If the system was as protected as the Government claims, they would need a couple people to process warrant requests, and that is all. No contractor would have been involved at all. No contractor would have been given the data. None of the more than a thousand contractors would have gotten money to deal with the data.

It's bullshit, and it's offensive. It's beyond insulting, and anyone who buys it has either failed to consider the information we've been told is true, or has stuck their heads in the sand and written off Civil Rights. Either way, the truth is that we are obviously being lied to.

[JaneyVee]

8. What about the AP reporter & the FOX reporter, it is proven that warrants were used.

[Savannahmann]

9. And that has to do with the collection of and access to the Telephone metadata how?

Again, the distraction is what you're pushing here. The distraction is that there is nothing wrong, and all is well, and look they're using warrants in cases we KNOW about.

But again, the claim is that they only examine the data with warrants. Which is an asinine claim upon it's face. Why do they need security contracting companies like Booz Allen to manage the data searches if all they are doing is issuing a few warrants. Even if they were issuing ten warrants a day for information within the metadata and saved internet data. Then one or two people would be all that is needed to access and present the data while complying with the warrant.

So it is a lie. There is no way they would need Booz Allen or any other contractors for the few people who would be under investigation at any one time under FISA. The only way you could justify using all those security contracting companies is if there is a lot of information to be sorted daily. You would need people to chase links, observe, watch, and collate the information if you were watching hundreds of thousands of people. Or even millions of people. Then you would need the numbers we've heard about being cleared, and working on this project.

So what is it? A massive boondoggle where billions of dollars are wasted giving security contracting companies nothing to do? Or are they actually using those contractors to sort and examine data that they say is not in use? How many warrants can need to be processed every day, remember this is supposedly for national security, which means that we can have what a couple a week, or perhaps a handful every month. Don't tell me we have tens of thousands of threats every day that have warrants issued and thus need those 4 million people with TS clearances working on this database. Don't tell me that all those companies are absolutely vital to national security if what you are telling me is true, and the data is accessed only with a warrant.

That is the question, not the times we've learned about when they used a warrant, but the reason they need such a huge organization to run down information on the occasional warrant.

[G_j]

10. +1000

[marions ghost]

14. +++++

Where did you get this figure of four million people total working on this? Just curious, I couldn't find a reference. I don't doubt you, just would like the source if you know it.

Four million people who know what their job description is. This boggles the mind.
They know what they are doing.
And now we do too.

[OilemFirchen]

18. Though the number is classified,

the NSA likely employs fewer that 50,000 people. At most it's 100K, per reporting by the always-reliable Glenn Greenwald, who, in addition to pulling this number out of his ass, suggests that 30K are gummint and the rest contractors - at odds with most actual government reporting.

[marions ghost]

20. Thanks

I'll compare that to Savannahman's source. Maybe he is talking about companies and contractors, and all other entities associated. Not just the NSA.

[OilemFirchen]

21. What's Savannahman's source?

[marions ghost]

22. That's what I'm asking

----maybe he'll weigh in at some point

[OilemFirchen]

26. Thanks.

Thought I missed it.

[marions ghost]

31. Here's one source

http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/more-four-million-hold-us-security-clearances-009060

09/28/2011 -

Reporters Dana Priest and William M. Arkin came up with an estimate on the growing number of people holding top-secret security clearances during research for the Washington Post series, “Top Secret America.” The series explores the intricacies of the country’s top secret activities. Based on two years of investigation, they estimated that around 854,000 government personnel and contractors held top secret clearances. The actual numbers, released this month, show that the number is much higher.

According to a report from the Director of National Intelligence, as of last October, there were more than one million (1,419,051) federal employees holding top secret clearances. The total number of people holding security clearances last year exceeded 4.2 million.

[OilemFirchen]

34. You'll note that the lion's share of clearances...

are held by government employees - consistent with what I said about Greenwald's spurious article. There's no reason to believe that Intelligence clearances are tilted toward the private sector - in fact it's counterintuitive.

[marions ghost]

35. No it's 50-50

About 2.6 million federal employees
About 2 million contractors and "others" (private sector)

--------------------------
4.6 million + -- total, with top secret clearances !

It is a staggering figure when you think about it.

I never knew this. but we are learning...

[OilemFirchen]

36. I think you're reading it incorrectly.

2.83 million government, 1 million contractor, plus "other" .

It is a tiny bit interesting that the numbers are marginally shifting away from government employees over time. But it shouldn't be a surprise, with the constant drumbeat for privatization.

ETA: (Meant to note that "other" is defined as "Personnel whose category field was not filled-in in the databases". There's every reason to assume that the ratios are consistent.)

[marions ghost]

39. No, not incorrect --add all columns for 2010

that are non-federal.

Adding contractors and others together it's well over 2 million.

So 2.8 million Fed
vs
2 million (+) = Non-fed.

So altho I rounded it off -- I stand by my first estimate.

[OilemFirchen]

42. Other =/= Private

Other = unstated.

Doesn't matter. Somewhat or considerably less than 100K intel employees with clearance (virtually all, including low-level staff) is absolutely not four million. Unless I've lost track, that was the outrage de jour, yes?

[marions ghost]

43. The post where 4 mil was quoted

was referring to total number of all with top secret clearance and that is over 4 million.

Which is correct so you're spewing BS.

4 million in 2010 and how many now? The number is staggering.

And you know what it implies.

[OilemFirchen]

45. Oh for fuck's sake.

Even YOUR cite makes the distinction between "Top Secret" and "Confidential".

Still, pretty outfits!

[Savannahmann]

29. From various news stories

Like this one that provides a number of numbers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/top-secret-crate-packers-among-legions-hired-with-leaker.html

[marions ghost]

32. Thanks

also see my post 31 above. I see it now.

I couldn't believe the figure, which is why I questioned it--!!!!!

[DevonRex]

13. OMG. Their jobs have nothing to do with this. This is a TINY bit of actual WORK done.

This is nothing more than data transfer and storage for the most part. Hardly anything is actually DONE with this. How long does it take you to download something? A few clicks. You get up and do your real job while the computer does its thing.

The communications that are taking place overseas between terrorist organizations are the real work. And the military intelligence operations taking place. The ones keeping our soldiers safe. Seriously, get a clue.

[OilemFirchen]

17. There are not four million Top Secret clearances.

There are approximately four million Confidential/Secret clearances, of which about one million are Top Secret.

And, clearly, not all of those clearance holders are in Intelligence. Most are in DoD, DHS and Treasury.

Makes for a kewl story, though. The following participants LOVED it!

[Savannahmann]

30. Bloomberg said four million.

USA Today says that government documents show 1.4 million Top Secret clearances. Of those, half a million are security contractors. Seems like a lot of people in the know and working on a project that they swear nobody looks at the data improperly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/09/government-security-clearance/2406243/

[OilemFirchen]

33. Is your post meant to refute mine?

Because that's pretty much what I just said. Except for the "half a million are security contractors". That's simply not true. Those half million contractors are spread pretty evenly among the alphabet agencies. Most, as I stated above, work for DoD, DHS, and Treasury.

[rhett o rick]

11. Something is fishy here. Nadler issues a statement that states that the administration told him

(reiterated) that the NSA cannot listen to phone contents.

Previously he stated, "Democratic New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler claims he was told in a closed-door briefing that the NSA could listen to a specific phone call, and get a call’s “contents” without a warrant, based solely on an analyst’s decision." (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he-was-told-government-could-listen). He said he was told that.

I havent seen him walk back that statement. So either he lied about what he was told or the person that told him, lied to him.

[OilemFirchen]

19. Perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that...

Nadler never said "that the NSA could listen to a specific phone call, and get a call’s 'contents' without a warrant, based solely on an analyst’s decision"?

There is an actual video of the hearing, you know. Transcripts too.

[rhett o rick]

24. He addressed the question to Mueller and Mueller said you needed a specific warrant.

He said that when he asked the question in the briefing he got a different answer. Mueller suggested it may have been a different question. Nadler said I asked the question and they were the same question. He also indicated he was shocked by the answer in the briefing.

Now he is saying that he is happy the WH has said that everything is fine.

[OilemFirchen]

25. He simply did not say...

"that the NSA could listen to a specific phone call, and get a call’s 'contents' without a warrant, based solely on an analyst’s decision".

Are you insisting that he did?

[RobertEarl]

27. The point IS

The NSA can listen to a specific phone call, and get a call’s 'contents' without a warrant, based solely on an analyst’s decision.

Can they use that stolen conversation or communication in court? No.
Unless a judge sets aside the constitution. Which judges do all the time in secret cases.

What you fail to understand, Oilem, is it is all a big secret. Once you get past that hurdle, you too will be against them tapping our phones. That is, if you care.

[rhett o rick]

37. I find it hard to believe you are series. There are a lot of things he did not say including

"Jerrold Nadler Does NOT Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls " That isnt a quote. You dont know what he "thinks".

Now here is something he did say. He did say that he was told that the NSA could listen to phone call content. He hasnt walked that back.

Now someone is lying here. Either Democrat Nadler or Republicans Mueller or Clapper. Do you believe Republicans???

[Marr]

12. How does this change what he claims to have heard in closed briefing?

This is just an acknowledgement that the public story is the public story. Until he says he misunderstood what was said in a private briefing, I don't see what's changed.

[magellan]

15. No assurance is good enough

Stop the fishing expeditions. No one who supports this or the Patriot Act should have a job in Washington.

[SidDithers]

23. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Historic NY]

28. OMG, OMG, OMG.........

Nadler ah..... now not so much.

Alarmist finding its now going to be harder to backpedal and put the toothpaste in the tube.

[rhett o rick]

38. You are so right. The toothpaste is out of the tube. And if you lynch Snowden, Greenwald, Nadler

and Grayson you wont get it back in the tube. Something is wrong and very wrong. Do you disagree we need to find out the truth?
Democracy depends on transparency, tyranny depends on secrecy. Which side are you on?

[Historic NY]

44. Did your read the entire article.......

the entire Q&A, media and preverted the conversation and testimony to fit their own agenda.

[rhett o rick]

46. I stand with those that want transparency. I do not approve of blanket spying on American citizens.

Spying means surveillance, it means meta-fucking-data.

If you need the Patriot Act to keep you safe, you live in the wrong fucking country. Move to Russia.

[CakeGrrl]

40. K/R

[marshall]

41. Can not, or should not, or will not, or shall not?

Each one has a different meaning. Even wit saying can not, does he mean they don't have the technology to do it on a grand scale, or they can but won't without a court order?

So many nuances.

[GeorgeGist]

47. Does he really believe that the server can read a warrant?