Yet Another NSA Program Raises Questions About Obama's Statements to Charlie Rose

[leveymg]

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 04:58 PM - Edit history (3)

Two days before President Obama's revealing interview with Charley Rose, the Washington Post published an overlooked article about the many programs run by NSA. Deep in the story was this revelation about a slew of surveillance operations: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-15/news/39993852_1_comey-national-intelligence-intelligence-collection

"One Of Them Intercepts Telephone Calls And Routes The Spoken Words To A System Called ­NUCLEON."

That would seem to directly contradict the President's comforting assurance Sunday night that NSA doesn't listen to Americans' phones calls because, he claims, it doesn't have the voice content: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-18/news/40049388_1_nsa-president-barack-obama-national-security-agency

"At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

***

Much of the President's credibility on this issue rides on the accuracy of his assertions made to Charley Rose that NSA's "2015 program" keeps only phone call metadata and does not collect voice content. As he put it, the NSA doesn't listen to Americans phone calls because that data isn't kept. "There is no content. " But, is that true? The Post's revelation about NUCLEON certainly contributes to the doubts about that claim.

The President's interview with Rose is excerpted at length, below:

Program 2015, (the President) said gets data from the service providers like a Verizon in bulk, and basically call pairs.

"You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place. So that database is sitting there," he said.

"Now, if the NSA through some other sources, maybe through the FBI, maybe through a tip that went to the CIA, maybe through the NYPD. Get a number that where there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this might involve foreign terrorist activity related to al-Qaeda and some other international terrorist actors.

Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out. A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

****
The WaPo report of June 15 goes into some detail about these previously unknown surveillance programs:

Two of the four collection programs, one each for telephony and the Internet, process trillions of “metadata” records for storage and analysis in systems called MAINWAY and MARINA, respectively. Metadata includes highly revealing information about the times, places, devices and participants in electronic communication, but not its contents. The bulk collection of telephone call records from Verizon Business Services, disclosed this month by the British newspaper the Guardian, is one source of raw intelligence for MAINWAY.

The other two types of collection, which operate on a much smaller scale, are aimed at content. One of them intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words to a system called ­NUCLEON.

For Internet content, the most important source collection is the PRISM project reported on June 6 by The Washington Post and the Guardian. It draws from data held by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other Silicon Valley giants, collectively the richest depositories of personal information in history.

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, 29, who unmasked himself as the source behind the PRISM and Verizon revelations, said he hoped for a systematic debate about the “danger to our freedom and way of life” posed by a surveillance apparatus “kept in check by nothing more than policy.”

For well over a week, he has had his wish. Startling disclosures have poured out of the nation’s largest and arguably tightest-lipped spy agency at an unprecedented pace. Snowden’s disclosures have opened a national conversation about the limits of secret surveillance in a free society and an outcry overseas against U.S. espionage.

***

Obama's statement is confusing, and appears to contradict reported facts, as it seems to say that voice content is not collected.

Read it again. He seems perfectly clear on this:

"Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out. A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

First, "There's no content." What did he mean by that? Does he mean to say that NSA doesn't collect content? Or, second, is he saying that NSA has no access to content, but other agencies that run their own 702 programs do - and, third, how are those two propositions really different?

His statement raises all three questions, as well as unfortunate questions about his full candor.

_____________________
Now available in orange, with extra added content at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/20/1217474/-Yet-Another-NSA-Program-Raises-Questions-About-Obama-s-Statements-to-Charley-Rose?showAll=yes
_____________________
ON EDIT - The Guardian has released a new round of documents today that include the NSA's targeting rules and minimiization guidelines. See, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document and linked Part A. Have only briefly scanned them, but will note any significant new information in an updated version of this posting.

[grasswire]

1. full candor

Americans deserve to know.

[leveymg]

2. We at least deserve not to be further confused by contradictory official statements.

That's being generous, I know.

[leftstreet]

3. I'm beginning to wonder if Obama understands this program at all

I know, I know...constitutional scholar, greatest prez ever blah, blah, blah

But seriously sometimes he sounds like he doesn't know what's going on

Forgot to say:
DURec
Nice links, thx

[leveymg]

5. Or, perhaps, he understands it so well that he can state facts like a lawyer - selectively,

and with a nuance that misleads without being easily caught in an out-and-out lie, as was the unfortunate Mr. Clapper (who is just a plain-speaking Air Force guy, not a Harvard Law Review Editor.)

[magellan]

6. I dount they let any president know everything about it

Presidents come and go. The surveillance apparatus is forever.

[questionseverything]

37. military industrial complex

is forever?

[JDPriestly]

88. I agree with you.

They are probably intercepting all his calls and listening in on his family. I would not put it past them.

They would never tell him or us. So we will never know and are free to imagine what we will.

I suspect the worst.

If they were listening in on the president, they would never tell us.

Now, what I want to know is where is the missing computer data from the Bush era. Where are the tapes of the Bush White House phone calls regarding torture and rendition and Valerie Plame among other things.

Let's have real transparency.

If we are not allowed to keep our personal lives secret from the NSA, why should anyone in government keep national secrets from us? How is that compatible with democracy and self-government?

The NSA has a big, big problem here, and it is going to get worse.

Most Americans are law-abiding. Why is all this time and money wasted on tracking our overseas calls, listening in to our calls, etc.?

And then they wonder why Americans are so prone to believe in conspiracy theories. How about because they can't be trusted to tell us the truth?

[Skip Intro]

4. K&R for TRUTH! n/t

[cascadiance]

7. I think Obama was parsing words as instructed and will claim that this wasn't "listening" to calls

... and will say that "transcribing" or "recording" them for future "listening" (if "listening" is authorized later by a warrant) is what is legal. Of course he won't talk about the "recording" or "transcribing" exceptions to what he's making claims for explicitly, but will fall back to that later if called out on it when the truth comes out and is pressed on it. And of course, if you are recording everyone and not going after any segment then you also aren't "targeting" anyone if everyone is being "recorded" or "transcribed" equally.

[Catherina]

20. +1 n/t

[bobduca]

30. Right.. Human Agency is required for "listening" nice fig leaf...

Everybody knows that computers can't listen, that's silly! they can only record and transcribe and index and make full-text searches possible!

[Rex]

71. They should just come out and admit it, but like pot

this is something the feds can never do --- impossible to just come out with the truth. Tell the American people that ya, been spying on ya since J. Edgar Hoover walked all over your rights as citizens. Never stopped. Now what?

I would find some honest truth refreshing, right about now.

NOT LIKE it is illegal!! THIS IS what people most forget imo...what should disturb everyone is NOT the fact that just because they have a D - they don't snoop. The govt snoops. All the time. What should worry people is that it is now legal TO snoop. No more of this illegal wiretapping business. Thanks to the Patriot Act and it's revisions - no need for it to be illegal, they have a rubber stamp court.

If we had ONE POTUS in my lifetime that told the truth for their entire 4 years in office, I would tell you I'm on the wrong planet. It will never happen. America will fall simply do to the weight of our pathological lying to ourselves and the rest of the world.

Remember, America can never be wrong in it's policies or attitudes. We don't change, everyone else has to.

[leveymg]

8. What's the importance of whether the NSA keeps voice and email content, or just metadata?

In one sentence, is the government still breaking the law? Sec. 702 of the Amended FISA Act of 2008 makes it illegal for the NSA to retain US person content collected from voice and email, and mandates that it be "minimized" (routinely destroyed). If it still exists and hasn't been "minimized", as the law requires, then we're now in a serious constitutional and legal crisis after the President has seemingly assured us that all that data doesn't exist, which most reasonable people would take to have the same meaning as "there's no content."

In a second sentence, it also goes to what the Agency and a future Administration can do with all those millions of messages between Americans. At some point down the line, Barrack Obama will no longer be President. Maybe, the next President will be a Republican. There will be all that raw material waiting for someone to start profiling all of us, if indeed that hasn't already occurred. And, it appears it has.

[reusrename]

50. Double-think.

The content is merely stored in the yottabyte facility until later when it can be retained and collected under authority of a specific warrant which is retroactively applied for by the analyst after having listened in to the conversation on his own authority.

Why do so many people have a problem with this?

[leveymg]

58. Here's the rub: Sec. 702(e) requires the NSA to minimize US person data - they aren't. It's illegal

to keep all that voice and email in cold storage until NSA, CIA, or FBI or the NYPD comes up with something later.

[reusrename]

69. I was making a reference to the prophet Orwell.

Doublethink: simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct


I am pretty sure this policy relies on quite a bit of doublethink.

[leveymg]

70. Absolutely! When you parse Obama's statement, you get two mutually exclusive

messages: 1) there is no content in the NSA database; but, 2) the analyst with "articulable suspicion" can query the database for a "report" that pops out other calls. How can they do that if there is nothing in there?

"Then what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out. A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

[reusrename]

73. I believe he is articulating the government's position rather accurately.

He is not the only one saying this. It's almost word-for-word what James "least untruthful" Clapper said.

I am not sure they (the good guys, if there are any) understand what the robosigning issue is all about. I doubt anyone they talk to has brought it up. The policy makers (we can assume it's the security corporations) absolutely know what's going on and that's why they set it all up this way.

[uponit7771]

9. Any confirmation of these programs? tia

[leveymg]

12. Yes - LinkedIn, the job networking site, contains many resumes that reference these programs

Here's an interesting Blog piece about that: http://front.kinja.com/job-networking-site-linkedin-filled-with-secret-nsa-pro-514057863

The profile linked by the ACLU's Soghoian lists more than two dozen intelligence programs with menacing names in the current techno-creep NSA style. This analyst also says he is responsible for NSA PowerPoint presentations to explain the massive surveillance systems to intelligence management and political leaders: "Prepared topic-specific, detailed presentations for senior leadership using Powerpoint, Word, ZapGrab, ARCMap, and SIGNAV."

Front located many similar lists of current NSA projects on other career and networking sites, including this one on Indeed.com:

Tools Used: Cadence/UTT, Blazing Saddles, Xkeyscore, Marina, Maui/Anchory, Sharkfinn, Agility, Mastershake, Pinwale, UIS, TKB, Target Profiler, Agent Logic, NKB/Foxtrail, Banyan, Bellview, Octskyward, Cineplex, Arcmap, Analyst Notebook/Renoir, Microsft Powerpoint, /Excel, NSLOOKUP, Traceroutes, Whois, Treasuremap, Goldpoint, Nucleon, Octskyward, Goldminer, Roadbed, RT-RG Tool Suite, Tuningfork, Pathfinder, Cloud_ABR, Airgap

In fact, the names of these programs are all over the Internet, including lengthy descriptions of the technology and methodology included within working papers and presentations intended for NSA management. Familiar with "BROOMSTICK"? There are many Top Secret-clearance jobs available!

[Monkie]

46. unbelievable, and these are the people "protecting" us, "we" fear them?

the stupidity and incompetence of these "intelligence" agents is breathtaking.
once you see how dumb they are, and how poorly they lie when caught out, all that is left that is a real threat to democracy are the tools they wield and their lack of humanity/empathy. the people that say this cant be stopped are ignoring that most of them could not spy their way out of a cardboard box.

[CrazyJudy]

10. why get into the details, let the press do the heavy lifting... n/t

[ReRe]

36. Cute. Yuk yuk yuk...

Please use the sarcasm button. (Seriously) thanks

[ProSense]

11. You're conflating

"Yet Another NSA Program Raises Questions About Obama's Statements to Charley Rose"

...domestic metadata collection with the foreign programs, which do involve content, from the transcript (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098) of the President's interview:

...There is a second program called the 702 program. And what that does is that does not apply to any U.S. person. Has to be a foreign entity. It can only be narrowly related to counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, cyber hacking or attacks, and a select number of identifiers — phone numbers, emails, et cetera. Those — and the process has all been approved by the courts — you can send to providers — the Yahoos or the Googles, what have you. And in the same way that you present essentially a warrant. And what will happen then is that you there can obtain content. But again, that does not apply to U.S. persons...

[leveymg]

13. No, I'm not conflating. But, Obama's statement is confusing as it seems to say that voice content

is not collected.

Read it again. He seems perfectly clear on this:

"Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out. A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

I'll ask the same set of questions again, because they need to be asked until there's a completely candid and sensible answer. First, "There's no content." What did he mean by that? Does he mean to say that NSA doesn't collect content? Or, second, is he saying that NSA has no access to content, but other agencies that run their own 702 programs do - and, third, how are those two propositions really different?

His statement raises all three questions, as well as unfortunate questions about his full candor.

And, here's the rub: Sec. 702 says all that data is supposed to be minimized, but it apparently hasn't been.

[ProSense]

14. Yes, he said that, but that's in the context of a specific program. n/t

[leveymg]

15. No. The data is being collected as part of 2015 but retained for 702. That's illegal.

Sec. 702 says it should be minimized if not collected pursuant to an individualized FISA warrant. Apparently, the voice and emails are still in there, and furthermore, Obama goes half-way to admitting that is what's happening. Read his statement again.

[ProSense]

16. You are misreading the information and taking the President's statements out of context. n/t

[leveymg]

17. Explain that, please. I've provided the context because the context makes it clear he's

dissembling in the way I just pointed out in the response immediately above. They're STILL breaking the law by retaining content collected without individualized warrants under one program (2015) and retaining it for use by another (702) that legally requires an individualized FISA warrant, and the President has just about admitted that (while managing to confuse most people). He is a good lawyer.

[ProSense]

18. There is nothing

"Explain that, please. I've provided the context because the context makes it clear he's dissembling in the way I just pointed out in the response immediately above. They're STILL breaking the law by retaining content collected without individualized warrants under one program (2015) and retaining it for use by another (702) that legally requires an individualized FISA warrant, and the President has just about admitted that (while managing to confuse most people). He is a good lawyer."

...in the WaPo article that makes that claim. It references the program, but it doesn't specify what you indicate. Here is the snip:

The other two types of collection, which operate on a much smaller scale, are aimed at content. One of them intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words to a system called ­NUCLEON.

For Internet content, the most important source collection is the PRISM project reported on June 6 by The Washington Post and the Guardian. It draws from data held by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other Silicon Valley giants, collectively the richest depositories of personal information in history.

You then quote the President addressing one program, which does not collect content. He then goes on to state that content is collected under another program. You are giving the impression that he only said that no content is collected.

Here is the transcript: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098

[leveymg]

25. What do you think happens to all that content that eventually goes into 702?

It gets run through the system, split into two parts, and stored until data-mining finds an "articulable suspicion", and another agency is alerted and seeks a FISA warrant. The content isn't looked at until a warrant is issued, we are told, but the content (acquired by the universal collection 2015 program) -- which must be minimized under 702 if not obtained with a proper FISA warrant -- is retained in a compartmentalized state. The content is isolated electronically (encrypted) from the metadata - that's how Bill Binney explained the process. The President also admits that's how the process works, here:

STEP 1: "2015" sweeps up the content and metadata into a database:

"You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place. So that database is sitting there," he said.

STEP 2: The NSA encrypts the content, stores the content, and profiling software start crawling through the metadata looking for links to foreign bad guys. NSA managers can deencrypt and put it back together again if the profiilng and datamining software shows there's an "articulable suspicion." FBI obtains a FISA warrant.

"Now, if the NSA through some other sources, maybe through the FBI, maybe through a tip that went to the CIA, maybe through the NYPD. Get a number that where there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this might involve foreign terrorist activity related to al-Qaeda and some other international terrorist actors.

Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out

STEP 3: NSA sends the reassembled data over to CIA or FBI:

A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

[ProSense]

32. You are misinterpreting what is being reported. n/t

[Monkie]

49. did i not tell you that this would end in tears for you soon a few days ago?

your crowing that they had nothing was a little premature or not?
this is just the beginning..

[questionseverything]

39. 2 parts?

citizen/foreign?

[reusrename]

53. I don't think what you said is exactly accurate.

"The content isn't looked at until a warrant is issued, we are told..."

I think there is quite a bit of confusion about the order of things, in other words how these things are related to each other in time.

If this is the case, then the next leak of classified material might be more information on how these analysts can look at anything in their database (which includes recordings of all our conversations and emails) with little or no oversight. I think it works something like this:

1) Yes, they do need a separate warrant in order to access content of individual phone calls/emails.

2) Yes, the analyst has legal authority to access content of individual phone calls/emails of anyone, on his own, without first getting a separate warrant.

These are consistent statements. The FISA law allows 72 hours after the fact to seek the warrant.

My understanding is that the analyst has legal access, on his own authority, once he has been verbally authorized by either the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence. I think the analyst only need fill out a form in order to take a peek at anything.

At least this is my current understanding of the law and the policy. These analysts, once verbally approved, might might be compared to the robosigners we found in the banking fraud.

There is one important difference; unlike the illegal robosigners for the banks, Congress, the Adminstration, and the Courts all seem to have made this process perfectly legal.

If you start to parse the Q&A information with this timeline in mind, it starts to reveal an amazing consistency. Many of the contradictory claims evaporate.

[leveymg]

57. There are also "exigent circumstances" that give them another week to obtain a warrant.

Thanks for that. I'd say, given the 72 hours with which NSA analysts may freely access the database, and another week to seek a warrant, that totally obliterates the President's claim that there is "no content" to analyze.

[reusrename]

72. I think the whole mechanism is automated.

From the Guardian Q&A:

>>>

2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

>>>

... Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

It makes sense, with thousands of these events happening all the time, that the system tabulates the information from the templated form they fill out into a separate database, and then this database is captured or "collected" under the next application for a warrant.

With thousands of these warrants being sought, they must repeat this process several times a day, or every three days at many different locations.

It is interesting to see how they weasel word everything they say about this program.

For a good example, they claim there has never been a "misuse" of this "robosigning" system. Of course not, compliance is completely computerized and automatic, no matter how the system is being abused. They have designed the system such that it is impossible to "misuse" it since each and every use is perfectly legal all around.

It really is exactly like the robosigning. The purpose of affidavits in the bankster cases was to help protect the rights of the borrower. It's exactly the same thing here.

[leveymg]

74. Bill Binney says it's based in profiling and terrorism potential scoring software.

But, a manager probably has to review the report before a FISA warrant is sought.

Here's Binney's talk at MIT in 2011 about NSA profiling: http://civic.mit.edu/blog/schock/the-government-is-profiling-you-william-binney-former-nsa

[reusrename]

76. Apples and oranges, I believe.

There are two separate concerns, for sure. One is the privacy issue associated with listening to phone conversations/reading emails, along with all the questions of whether or not the laws are constitutional, or whether or not they are even being followed. This has always been the case with the 4th Amendment, ever since the country was founded.

The second concern is completely new, and it has to do with the use of metadata. Metadata is used to create the targets for a counterinsurgency operation. Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network (or insurgency) is not the most high profile or the most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example), this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.

That, in a nutshell, is what the metadata is being collected and used for. It should be obvious how this information can be used/misused to affect our first amendment freedoms, specifically our right to peaceably assemble. There are a couple of stories floating around today about how the MIC is targeting opponents of the keystone pipeline. This counterinsurgeny technology and training is being used against law-abiding citizens right here in America.

Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that the algorithms sort out the social connections.

Almost everything about this particular type of surveillance is new. The science behind the algorithms that are used and the computers that store and sift the data are new. The idea behind controlling the pubic is not new, however. It has been done before, and very effectively, even without this new weapon.

This all fits into the bigger picture of the War on Terror. Remember that our country was founded by insurgents. Many, if not all of our heroes, would have been easily thwarted under this type of surveillance regime and folks have written about how Paul Revere could have been stopped.


For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords: thesis+insurgent+social+network


This use of the metadata seems to be the more dangerous issue. The eavesdropping can be used to disrupt/detain/dissuade/discredit a target. But the scientific selection of targets is what thwarts our (the ones who are trying to change things) ability to properly organize any resistance. This is serious. Without organization we have no idea who to aim our pitchforks at.

Basically, we are racing toward future where you either support the 1% or else you are a terrorist. This path leads to the restoration of slavery. There is no doubt about it.

[leveymg]

77. I have to agree with about 99% of that. However, they have much more than metadata on which to

base their terrorist (I like your term "insurgent" better) scoring and predictive profiles. They have all those vast trove of data acquired from Google, MS, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, and the rest, including credit records, shopping habits, social networks, personal interests, politics, and reading materials, and everything else that goes to make up our virtual selves.

Personally, I find that profiling is most offensive and dangerous as it includes the built-in biases of the system's designers, and frankly, a lot of those people strike me having very low tolerance for political and social difference. Their norms are probably very narrow, as result, a lot of people who otherwise view themselves as patriotic and lawful are categorized as suspect, and that labeling (even if secret) has vast repercussions for lives and careers, particularly the ability to obtain public or higher-paid private employment, almost all of which requires some sort of security clearance or background check these days. That makes all of society much poorer, and creates potential conflicts and insurgents.

We need to think creatively about changing the models of politics, resistance and insurgency to overcome these challenges. But, most of all, we can't allow this to chill or terrorize us. The best defense of our liberties, I believe, is to let them know that we know what they know, but will do what we see is just and right, anyway - but, not in the way they predicted it.

[reusrename]

80. You're absolutely right that we need some creativity.

I surpassed my fear threshold several years ago. Now I just want to look at what's in the matrix. It seems the shadow government could be rooted out very effectively with this technology. I want it all made public. At least the part that is used for the targeting portion of the system.

I know that this new science is much more effective than the old "cell and block leader" systems that were used by the vichy governments of occupied Europe. But that's exactly how we should view ourselves, as an occupied citizenry with a shadow government that will stop at nothing to stay in power.

So that's how things break down in my view. It no longer has anything to do with party or national labels. We (the ones who are trying to change things) are up against the most sophisticated organization that's ever existed.

[questionseverything]

75. do we have any idea what constitutes

"exigent circumstances" ? or is that a secret too?

[leveymg]

78. There are general guidelines, but those are subject to interpretation.

Here's a very useful document if you want to understand Sec 702: https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/faa-extend.html

Here's a footnote on point: \6\In very limited circumstances, FISA expressly permits
surveillance without a court order. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1805(e)*
(Attorney General may approve emergency surveillance if the standards
of the statute are met and he submits an application to the FISC within
seven days).

* See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

[sigmasix]

24. willfully misunderstanding the president isnt the same as fighting tyranny

It's obvious that there are two different programs that you are conflating purposefully to create the impression that the president is prevericating. One program deals with american citizen's phone data and the other deals with collection of content for non-citizen phone calls. All completely legal and exactly as the president said.
Once again; willfully misunderstanding the statements made by the president is not the same as fighting tyranny. You have the freedom to use hyperbole-enhanced narratives and lies about the ultimate aims of the president of the united states- but good people have the right to call you on it every time as well. It makes one wonder what your true aims are as you declare the president's intentions to spy on every American, all the time.

Why are teabaggers so scared of publically owning-up to thier own ideology?

[leveymg]

26. 702 and 2015 are just two parts of the same program.

See my detailed explanation, immediately above.

[Monkie]

47. this is the person that was measuring that bush droned more people to protect their hero

i dont think there is much point in attempting to reason with someone that will come into a conversation about the legality of drone strikes and think it is a good idea to say, but bush was worse, and include a quote showing the number of people that were murdered by bush in drone strikes was higher than the person they worship. and when called out about that did not have the good grace to admit that it was a bad idea to measure and compare who killed more people illegally. and did not seem to realise or want to admit how morally repugnant that is.

[reusrename]

55. What makes you believe Obama has the correct answers?

Don't you think he can be tricked or lied to? Do you view him as omnipresent?

On a more technical note, not understanding something isn't the same as misunderstanding something.

[Pholus]

52. Too bad he didn't volunteer THAT detail up front.

[Liberal_in_LA]

19. kick

[blkmusclmachine]

21. Somebody's LYING

We're all Germans now

[Catherina]

22. There's no content? So all those acres at Bluffdale are to store flat files?

Can we have our money back then?



Whoever is coaching him is doing a terrible job.

[Octafish]

23. What Lord Acton said...

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that cannot bear discussion and publicity."

[leveymg]

29. Acton also said something about the consequences of failure to learn from history.

We seem to be repeating it, again.

[Octafish]

65. What better than to have someone unexpected lead its return?

Matches perfectly with the, uh, disconnect between what is said and what is done.

PS: Forgot to thank you for the heads-up on the latest blah blah. History will not be kind to the guy who has blown five years sucking up to the Have-Mores and their War Party. Perhaps he'll be remembered and thanked when the shelter doors are bolted.

[Th1onein]

27. But, but, but........it's JUST METADATA! Yeah, right.

Effin' liars.

[The Link]

28. This is what is driving all the racism bullshit.

Desperation to justify and excuse the inexcusable.

[dkf]

31. POTUS has fooled himself into thinking the only program to be exposed is PRISM.

Snowden, Greenwald and WAPO are going to contradict all his misstatements. Obama doesn't realize he is going to get buzzed for every thing he says that is "least untruthful".

[Monkie]

48. exactly, to think that a "nerd" like snowden, and a lawyer like greenwald are stupid

was a serious miscalculation by the people in charge of this. at watergate it was not the break-in itself that ended nixon.
and here we are seeing something similar, snowden and greenwald are handing them rope, inch by inch, and just watching them hang themselves with their own words.

[Hydra]

33. We knew it was in there somewhere

Regardless of how they "compartmentalized" this for various legalese/splitting hairs reasons, they have the entire content of what we're doing every day logged and accessible to anyone in the system who feels like looking at it.

The President has thrown his support behind this for reasons we'll probably never know...but we don't need to. This is a violation of the Constitution, totally illegal. If they continue with this, we'll know that this isn't our gov't in any way shape or form- it belongs to whoever owns the firepower required to enforce it.

[Fearless]

34. Surprise!

[Uncle Joe]

35. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, leveymg.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Oops anther cat...out of the bag

[ReRe]

40. K&R

Thanks for the information in your OP, lefeymg.

I prefer the ugly truth, rather than the pretty lie. ~~ReRe

[DevonRex]

41. This one is definitely military intelligence related.

That's all I'll say.

[ProSense]

54. Ths OP is nonsense, but people are determined to make up stuff to call Obama a liar.

They're going to create an illegal act where there is none.

[leveymg]

59. You had your chance to argue that last night, and failed. Unless you bring any new facts or

arguments to the table, please show enough common courtesy to stop spewing. Nobody's making anything up here, except maybe the President.

BTW: here are two other violations of Sec. 702 that we can argue about. Shall we?

Reverse lookups ("trace-backs" from targets abroad) are illegal under 1881(b)(2), and minimization of US person data is mandatory under Sec. 1881(e). The President's statement seems to imply that neither part of the law is being followed.

Here is what Sec. 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendment, as codified at 50 USC Sec. 1881, requires: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a

50 USC § 1881a - Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

(a) Authorization
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
(b) Limitations
An acquisition authorized under subsection (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.
(c) Conduct of acquisition
(1) In general
An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall be conducted only in accordance with—
(A) the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e); and
(B) upon submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g), such certification.
(2) Determination
A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.
(3) Timing of determination
The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may make the determination under paragraph (2)—
(A) before the submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g); or
(B) by amending a certification pursuant to subsection (i)(1)(C) at any time during which judicial review under subsection (i) of such certification is pending.
(4) Construction
Nothing in subchapter I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such subchapter for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
(d) Targeting procedures
(1) Requirement to adopt
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to—
(A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
(B) prevent the intentional acquisition of 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.
(2) Judicial review
The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
(e) Minimization procedures
(1) Requirement to adopt
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title or section 1821 (4) of this title, as appropriate, for acquisitions authorized under subsection (a).
(2) Judicial review
The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).

Let's dance.

[temmer]

42. ACLU: Calls and Emails can't be "targeted" under FISA, but certainly collected

But all of these defenses ignore a simple, basic point: Communication is a two-way street. And if an American is communicating (however innocently) with a foreign "target" under the FAA, the law allows the government to collect, inspect, and keep the content of that communication. As Glenn Greenwald clarified on Tuesday, under the FAA, "no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance."

And what it does it take for the NSA to "target" a foreigner for surveillance? Not much. The target need not be a suspected terrorist or even suspected of any kind of wrongdoing. The FAA allows the government to target any foreigner when it wants to collect "foreign intelligence," which includes information about "foreign affairs." In other words, the statute allows the government to sweep up essentially every foreigner's communications, including those with Americans.

In fact, it's likely much worse than that. While official defenses have flatly stated that targets under the FAA must be both foreign and abroad, the statute only requires that the government "reasonably believe" those things to be true. And The Washington Post's report on PRISM—one government content-surveillance program authorized by the FAA—indicates that the government's "reasonable belief" need only be made to "51 percent confidence." (As The Daily Show's John Oliver put it, the rigor of that constraint amounts to the surveillance equivalent of "flipping a coin, plus one percent.&quot The Post also reported that the government not only collects the communications of a foreign target, but of "contacts two ‘hops' out from their target, which increases ‘incidental collection'" of Americans' communications "exponentially."

Read more:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/under-fisa-amendments-act-your-calls-and-emails-cant-be-targeted-they-can

[leveymg]

67. How many of us are more than "two hops" from Bin Laden? 51%?

[allin99]

90. ugh. : |

[sabrina 1]

43. This makes no sense to me:

"Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up?

Why do they need a data base of people's phone #s to do this? Why can't they just use the telephone book? People can do reverse searches with phone numbers. What is meant by 'to see if the number pops up?' Of course it will pop up. People don't get phones for decoration purposes, they USE them.

And before anyone says 'but they can see who was called, at what times etc'. A number is useless without knowing who owns it. So presumably if they have a number they will want to identify the person. They can do that by using the reverse phone number system, then they can get a warrant to look at that person's phone records and they will have all the info on who and when and what time and where those calls were made.

This program, imo, is NOT to catch terrorists, and if this is how they really think they can do that, then they are just plain stupid. It is for something else. And I suspect it has something to do with MONEY.

[temmer]

44. Yep - reverse phone number search

You're absolutely right IMHO.

I remember Rogers repeatedly asking Alexander if the NSA scans not only phone numbers, but also names. Alexander was given three occasions to answer with a wholehearted "No, sir". They made a big show out of it.

[sabrina 1]

45. So assuming he is telling the truth, this 'collection' of theirs would be useless and the

President's statement is totally confusing. I wish they had followed up with some more questions, such as

'What do you mean that they have a number, how would they get just a number? Someone dropped a slip of paper, they saw it in someone's address book, (where they would see a name and have more than just a number) or someone called them but didn't give a name?

And:

'If all they had was a number, which seems odd, why not use reverse phone records? Wouldn't that be a lot faster than scanning millions of numbers to find it, and then, when you do find it, what would it tell you? If you don't have names, now you found that someone who has that number uses it? Didn't you know that already?

And if the president answered, which he would as there is no other answer to that question

'Well, they would have info such as when calls were made and what number (more numbers without id) were called and what time he called'

The next question would obviously be:

'But if you used reverse phone records, you have a name to match the number. Then all you need to do is get a warrant to get his phone records and you get all that information without any problem?'

None of it makes any sense. That is why they are acting so insane, they cannot explain what they are doing this for, because obviously they know if they did, people would, as Ron Wyden said 'be outraged if they knew how they are using this law'.

[leveymg]

51. I wish that Rose had asked: 1) Do you do reverse lookups? 2) Do you minimize the data? Because

reverse lookups are illegal under 1881(b)(2), and minimization of US person data is mandatory under Sec. 1881(e). As the comments above indicate, the President's statement seem to imply that neither part of the law is being followed.

Here is what Sec. 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendment, as codified at 50 USC Sec. 1881, requires: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a

50 USC § 1881a - Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

(a) Authorization
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
(b) Limitations
An acquisition authorized under subsection (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.
(c) Conduct of acquisition
(1) In general
An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall be conducted only in accordance with—
(A) the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e); and
(B) upon submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g), such certification.
(2) Determination
A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.
(3) Timing of determination
The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may make the determination under paragraph (2)—
(A) before the submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g); or
(B) by amending a certification pursuant to subsection (i)(1)(C) at any time during which judicial review under subsection (i) of such certification is pending.
(4) Construction
Nothing in subchapter I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such subchapter for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
(d) Targeting procedures
(1) Requirement to adopt
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to—
(A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
(B) prevent the intentional acquisition of 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.
(2) Judicial review
The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
(e) Minimization procedures
(1) Requirement to adopt
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title or section 1821 (4) of this title, as appropriate, for acquisitions authorized under subsection (a).
(2) Judicial review
The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).

[sigmasix]

56. still tiltiing at windmills?

So you are sticking to substituting lies and hyperbole for facts. This isnt a big surprise; right wing echo-chamber "news" is always tuned to misrepresent the president of the united states as a monster out to spy on every American, all the time. It makes no difference to you and your fellow right wing activists what this president has to say on this subject. Teabaggers and ODS will never allow this president to present a normative discussion about this subject without claims of conspiracy theories and willfull misunderstanding of his statements to confuse and conflate his role as an evil rogue president that is out to spy on every American, all the time.
The memes of right wing extremism are the only things I have seen you repeatedly post and refer to when discussing this issue. The president was talking about two different programs- but you are hopeful that you and your compatriot right wingers can confuse this subject through your purposeful confusion of the two programs and cherry-picking the statements of the president through "creative" context-free editing of his statements and the releases of the NSA facts.
This president doesn't hate America like the last guy (shrub) and all the right wing attacks and character assasinations have made it even more obvious that this president is very different from the destructive plans and individuals of the right wing. I would think that anyone with a sense of true outrage would reserve their acrimony and double-dealing for anti-American right wing extremists that have been proven to want to spy on every American, all the time.
Obama Derangement Syndrome is strong in you- perhaps you should see a professional about your derangment- it is causing you to see plots and subversion in everything President Obama does. This is also known as an intellectual and emotional ilness- when the sufferer is incapable of telling the difference between the crimes of the bush administration and the legal actions of the Obama administration.
Sure seems like you keep moving the goal post for Obama and proof of his evil intentions to spy on every American all the time. Why dont you just admit to being a shill for the ODS folks and defend the truth of your actions and ineundo for all to see? The reason ODS freaks wont admit to carrying the teabagger buckets is that you know most Americans trust teabaggers much, much less than they trust the president.

[Oilwellian]

60. Who the fuck are you?

To call out a long time DU'er and infer they're a right wing teabagger? I suggest you read the rules of this site and delete your outrageous post. It's definitely worthy of an alert.

[ohiosmith]

62. This post was alerted on. The jury voted 6/0 to let it stand.

At Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

still tiltiing at windmills?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3053081

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling fellow DU'ers right wing teabaggers is against DU rules.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:14 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's OK now, as it's OK to say people are being paid, apparently.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There are plenty of right wing Tea Party types here at DU. It is good to shine some light and expose them.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: And making fun of racism should be against the rules too - but Manny Goldstein and Nadinbrezinski and cali get away with it. Game on. Let the post stand.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If it walks like a duck! Quack,......quack,.....quack,...... Leave the post!

[JustAnotherGen]

63. Amen

And the 'who the fuck are you' was over the top too.

Stop alerting on petty shit and I'll stop letting it stand.

[ohiosmith]

64. Right on!

[Progressive dog]

92. Good jury

[Octafish]

66. Not windmills: leveymg has stood up to the giant Beast.

For instance:

PARTNERS IN CRIME: The Clintons, the Bushes, and BCCI

No ghosts there, just the shadows of cowards, trembling at what the facts reveal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. I guess this

Text
Learn more
AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is OSD.

Welcome to my ignore list

[LondonReign2]

81. Wow, that was one of the best posts

in terms of letting me know who to put on ignore

[madville]

61. According to the White House they typically

According to the White House lately they typically have no knowledge of:

What the IRS is doing
What the DOJ is doing
What the ATF is doing

Should we really expect them to have any knowledge of what the NSA is doing on a daily basis?

[PufPuf23]

79. leveymg is a great poster at DU. Thank you. kr

[Jarla]

82. I think there are 2 separate databases

Or at least that is my understanding from the WAPO article.

MAINWAY is the database which stores the metadata on phone calls. And it appears that they are collecting this metadata in bulk. But this is perfectly legal.


NUCLEON is a separate database that stores recordings of phone calls. This database may only be storing the recordings of phone calls that are completely international, such as a call between someone in Egypt and someone in India.

I think you need a warrant to record any phone call that includes a U.S. person.

[leveymg]

84. The question is, how separate are they?

One has to look at the entire process of data collection, analysis, dissemination, and storage to see that one data-base informs the other. While there are different rules that apply to warrant requirements, we see that individual warrants are not sought in most cases where the NSA processes the data of US persons.

Here's the primary reason I don't believe that the supposed wall between the Sec 702 (Prism) and the "2015" program databases (MAINWAY-phone and MARINA-email and attachments) are not really that substantial: the NSA has 72 hours to seek a FISA warrant and 7 days when there are "exigent circumstances" after acquisition of any particular item of intelligence. That's plenty of time in most cases to make an assessment - as Obama puts it, to "pop out a report." Almost all that analysis -- which is really data mining of all sources, including the 702 database -- is done automatically without a warrant - only the initial acquisition requires any warrant. If the system scores the individual high enough (profiles the individual as a possible terrorist, etc.) based upon all sources, a manager may order a FISA warrant. If there's not enough to seek a warrant, the intelligence gets thrown back into the system where it's retained for at least five years.

You shouldn't consider the two databases as hermetically sealed, as they aren't - they're both tied to many other IC databases and each other in a network with multiple feedback loops, and profiling software does the initial scoring based upon all sources, not just the metadata that gets put into the 2015 database(s) with lots of other data sources. The specific procedures are referenced in the latest documents released today by Greenwald at the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-a-procedures-nsa-document

[Jarla]

87. But if NUCLEON is only recording and storing phone calls that take place in other countries

then (theoretically) the database doesn't contain any content from an American's phone call for someone to "analyze."

[leveymg]

89. NSA analysts, and the MAINWAY/MARINA systems have access to virtually all gov't databanks

including PRISM. Read the NSA Targeting rules - there is no prohibition on access to PRISM ("702&quot , and the guidelines expressly say that NSA analysts look at other NSA and agency databases to make targeting determinations. So, what's the difference?

[ohheckyeah]

95. I'm guessing they are as separate as

Google is from YouTube.

[DeSwiss]

83. "Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." ~I.F. Stone

- K&R

[hootinholler]

85. Kick for later.

And ProSense Pwnage

[limpyhobbler]

86. yes we scan

you mad tho?

[xtraxritical]

91. The "Presidents credibility" was in doubt from the get go with his appointments

and further shredded by his "grand bargain" bs and SS chained CPI. His "crossed a redline" in Syria is just the latest. He is doing major damage to Democrats chances in 2014/2016. I wish I had voted Green.

[Progressive dog]

93. You can vote Green next time

That's your right in a democracy. I didn't know that the chained CPI had been implemented. I foolishly believed that the Senate and House both had to approve.
Anyhow, I didn't think this thread was about those things; I thought it was about how he's spying on us.

[xtraxritical]

94. His endorsements of these things, what do you think your smart? I don't.

[Progressive dog]

96. You don't like to be agreed with?

If you want to vote Green, all you have to do is mark the ballot for Green next time. I'm just stating the obvious.