General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsACLU: NSA Retains Purely Domestic Communications Without Warrants, Documents Show
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/nsa-claims-broad-authority-monitor-americans-international-calls-and-emailsNSA Claims Broad Authority to Monitor Americans' International Calls and Emails
Agency Retains Purely Domestic Communications Without Warrants, Documents Show
June 20, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
NEW YORK The government is engaged in warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans' international communications, according to secret FISA Court documents released today by The Guardian. Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director, made the following comments about the latest revelations:
"After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, we worried that the NSA would use the new authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' telephone calls and emails. These documents confirm many of our worst fears. The 'targeting' procedures indicate that the NSA is engaged in broad surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"The 'minimization' procedures that supposedly protect Americans' constitutional rights turn out to be far weaker than we imagined they could be. For example, the NSA claims the authority to collect and disseminate attorney-client communications and even, in some circumstances, to turn them over to Justice Department prosecutors. The government also claims the authority to retain Americans' purely domestic communications in certain situations."
ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo said:
"Collectively, these documents show indisputably that the legal framework under which the NSA operates is far too feeble, that existing oversight mechanisms are ineffective, and that the government's surveillance policies now present a serious and ongoing threat to our constitutional rights. The release of these documents will help inform a crucial public debate that should have taken place years ago."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The hater category? Or both?
And do they have Obama Derangement Syndrome?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)awaiting an upgrade, only the Wampus and Pro know for sure
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Since they were in Nixon's shit...errr enemies list too!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)which makes the use of it seem all the more bad faith.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)no better than the teabaggers
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)thanks.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)someone posted that bs in a thread earlier. so-called firebaggers and teabaggers are identical how many people are on the third way payroll here?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)www.aclu.org
Memberships for low-income, students, and seniors are available at low cost.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Perhaps you are on a watch list by posting on DU.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They are international communications. It's time to elect legislators that will change the FISA. This is a debate we should be having and I'm happy we're having it.
I see no reason why they shouldn't need a warrant to retain these communications.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)because technically these were international communications,
Unless I'm misreading the article.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)They're intercepting and retaining the effect of US citizens calling and receiving inside the US. They're out of control and they need to be brought to heel.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)A warrant should be issued in these cases.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)...and the entire organization is fundamentally racist."
Could someone point out where that paragraph is/was?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...is quoting Greenwald, but he does a lot of speculating while reporting the procedures. The "international communications" are why there are safeguards. There is more to the report on the actual procedures.
The authors write that the documents "detail the circumstances in which data collected on U.S. persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the U.S., and reveals how U.S. call records are used to help remove U.S. citizens and residents from data collection."
"The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or e-mail information without warrants," Greenwald and Ball write.
The procedures governing collection of information on foreign targets "cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic U.S. communications," the Guardian says. It reported earlier this month that most data collection happens with approval of the FISA court under the Patriot Act.
The FISA court allows the NSA to keep data "that could potentially contain details of U.S. persons" for up to five years, and to retain and use "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications that contain "usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity," the Guardian writes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/20/nsa-surveillance-fisa-court/2442899/
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Any and all content, not just meta data of US citizens?
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)the corporate dems are no longer consistent with the story they are trying to sell us haha.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You finally admit they can take content? Any and all content, not just meta data of US citizens?"
...been stated over and over that the take content in "international communications" dealing with foreign targets. The President stated as much in his Charlie Rose interview. That's why there are safeguards to protect Americans.
Still, the breaking news about queries is curious.
5 New Revelations About NSA Surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041631
bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=3]"The NSA's data dragnet operation snares information from everyone. According to accounts of how the system seems to work, it's then left to intelligence analysts to tweak their algorithms until they're only investigating hits on people they have a "51% confidence" of being foreign."[/font]
http://www.informationweek.com/security/privacy/nsa-prism-inside-the-modern-surveillance/240156341
...until THEY have a "51% confidence" of being foreign. (LOL)
THis ^ is NOT "The Onion", though that is where this belongs.
You can post as many [font color=blue]Little Blue Links[/font] as you want,
but THAT is an imaginary protection,
and NOTHING to inspire any confidence or trust in this system.
So claiming that the NSA ONLY spies on "foreigners" is as BOGUS as
the The FISA COURT turning down a warrant requested by the NSA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058210
Monkie
(1,301 posts)how can they compete?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Coccydynia
(198 posts)If the meta data does not contain sufficient information to determine the communication is international, the analysts are free to peruse the CONTENT, to determine the communication is, in fact, international.
That tells me the content is easy to access, and that a warrant is not required to access it.
SlimJimmy
(3,184 posts)Coccydynia
(198 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)In other words, it might be important to understand how these things are related to each other in time.
If so, 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.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)Let's see the request within 72 hours. Show the timelines for each request. The burden of proof is on the government.
It's easy to quash the lies and the misinformation with evidence.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)strictly domestic documents. It helps to actually read the court orders. Sometimes just reading some administration talking (or blogging) points and repeating them on DU destroys your credibility.
Just assuming the Obama PR department always knows what is going on or lets its bloggers know all of what it knows can be an embarrassing mistake.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)the fact that Greenwald said it automatically invalidates it.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)They defended the Nazis in Skokie, after all. And everyone knows that Nazis should have no civil liberties (unless, of course, they're members of the 1%).
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)for all that you do.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)marmar
(77,114 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Solly Mack
(90,800 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)Who?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)With secret government, it's extremely difficult to answer.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Why can't they be happy with a Surveillance State? Better yet, what are they hiding?