NSA breaks privacy rules "thousands of times per year"

[bradley]

I remember several years ago, this forum was teeming with progressives and their defenders, and now the exposition of a remaining few almost seems like a ridiculous parody. It will take just one more Republican President to crush them too.

 

[TerryMathews]

I just looked into this more and more than 2/3rds of the incidents (about 1,900 of the 2,700) involved cases where a foreign target being wiretapped went from being outside the US (no warrant required) to being inside the US (warrant required) without the NSA realizing it quickly enough. SUCH SCANDAL.

The issue here has been, and always has been, how horrible the scope of things that can be done LEGALLY is, not stupid crap like this.

And what of the data collection policy that was so egregious that the FISA court deemed it unconstitutional.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Until this program comes out of the darkness and into the light so that it can receive proper oversight it is a horrible abuse of power and a tremendous violation of every Americans rights.

The foxes are watching the henhouse and the door's barred so we can't even see in. We just have to believe the foxes when they tell us they're not eating the hens.

Nope, nothing wrong with that.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you get paid to be a spokesperson for this administration?

Hey, the short bus is calling.

 

[fskimospy]

And what of the data collection policy that was so egregious that the FISA court deemed it unconstitutional.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Yes, that's terrible but that actually makes me happy in the end. The point of the FISA court is to do EXACTLY THAT, tell the NSA, CIA, FBI, whoever that what they are doing or want to do isn't okay. That's the whole point.

My issue is how incredibly rarely that happens. I want the FISA court to do that a lot more. Like I said before, the real scandal is what we currently consider legal to do. This isn't about Obama, this is about what any president can do.

Until this program comes out of the darkness and into the light so that it can receive proper oversight it is a horrible abuse of power and a tremendous violation of every Americans rights.

The foxes are watching the henhouse and the door's barred so we can't even see in. We just have to believe the foxes when they tell us they're not eating the hens.

Nope, nothing wrong with that.

That's ridiculous. We will never put top secret surveillance programs up for public scrutiny, nor should we ever.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes, that's terrible but that actually makes me happy in the end. The point of the FISA court is to do EXACTLY THAT, tell the NSA, CIA, FBI, whoever that what they are doing or want to do isn't okay. That's the whole point.

My issue is how incredibly rarely that happens. I want the FISA court to do that a lot more. Like I said before, the real scandal is what we currently consider legal to do. This isn't about Obama, this is about what any president can do.



That's ridiculous. We will never put top secret surveillance programs up for public scrutiny, nor should we ever.

Obama is the man in charge currently. It's his program. Once he's out of office, we can start slamming the next guy.

The capabilities of this program are clearly unconstitutional.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama is the man in charge currently. It's his program. Once he's out of office, we can start slamming the next guy.

The capabilities of this program are clearly unconstitutional.

Not according to our courts they aren't.

These programs are the result of bipartisan cooperation across administrations and across the aisle in Congress. The idea that they are somehow "Obama's programs" is clearly false. He has a large degree of responsibility for them but he is nowhere close to alone. Thinking of it as "Obama's program" misses the actual scope of the problem.

 

[TerryMathews]

Not according to our courts they aren't.

These programs are the result of bipartisan cooperation across administrations and across the aisle in Congress. The idea that they are somehow "Obama's programs" is clearly false. He has a large degree of responsibility for them but he is nowhere close to alone. Thinking of it as "Obama's program" misses the actual scope of the problem.

As all of these agencies fall under the executive branch, you understand that they can be shuttered via executive order correct?

So yes, his programs. Considering he is a constitutional law scholar, it's especially shameful.

And not according to A court they aren't. Now that they are officially acknowledged so that other groups may sue, a federal court in the light may not view these programs like FISA did.

 

[Genx87]

Well there goes the talking point that the govt could abuse it but they havent.

 

[fskimospy]

As all of these agencies fall under the executive branch, you understand that they can be shuttered via executive order correct?

So yes, his programs. Considering he is a constitutional law scholar, it's especially shameful.

They most certainly can not be, nor should they be. When Congress funds an agency or activity through appropriations the President is not allowed to simply close it down. (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act) If Congress has chosen to fund activities, even if Obama shut the NSA down he would have to immediately assign those activities to other intelligence services. We don't know exactly what Congress has appropriated however, as those budgets are classified.

Stop trying to absolve other people of their responsibility in this. I know it doesn't play as well politically for you, but if you actually care about this being changed you can't ignore people because it's politically inconvenient.

And not according to A court they aren't. Now that they are officially acknowledged so that other groups may sue, a federal court in the light may not view these programs like FISA did.

While all courts may not think alike, the FISA court is most certainly a court, and they have most certainly ruled these activities by and large as constitutional. Sorry.

 

[SaurusX]

While all courts may not think alike, the FISA court is most certainly a court, and they have most certainly ruled these activities by and large as constitutional. Sorry.

Really? Where can I read their rulings and interpretations of the law? Oh... riiiiight.

 

[TerryMathews]

Really? Where can I read their rulings and interpretations of the law? Oh... riiiiight.

Exactly. If it weren't for Snowden, we wouldn't know any of this. Glorious Leader would still have his shills lying that this never happens.

 

[TerryMathews]

They most certainly can not be, nor should they be. When Congress funds an agency or activity through appropriations the President is not allowed to simply close it down. (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act) If Congress has chosen to fund activities, even if Obama shut the NSA down he would have to immediately assign those activities to other intelligence services. We don't know exactly what Congress has appropriated however, as those budgets are classified.

Stop trying to absolve other people of their responsibility in this. I know it doesn't play as well politically for you, but if you actually care about this being changed you can't ignore people because it's politically inconvenient.



While all courts may not think alike, the FISA court is most certainly a court, and they have most certainly ruled these activities by and large as constitutional. Sorry.

Stop trying to absolve Obama. He has the most power of anyone in this situation to end this violation of our constitutional rights.

I would also like to see my party defund this program. I wonder how you would come down on that. Would they just be obstructionist republicans again?

 

[fskimospy]

Stop trying to absolve Obama. He has the most power of anyone in this situation to end this violation of our constitutional rights.

I can't possibly see how you would have gotten the impression that I was absolving Obama. I'm just trying to get you to see past your partisanship and realize that these programs are a result of a pretty strong bipartisan consensus.

I would also like to see my party defund this program. I wonder how you would come down on that. Would they just be obstructionist republicans again?

I want vastly stronger oversight, not the general programs defunded. I have no idea why you would try and tie this to the Republican Party's larger scheme of obstuctionism however.

 

[TerryMathews]

I can't possibly see how you would have gotten the impression that I was absolving Obama. I'm just trying to get you to see past your partisanship and realize that these programs are a result of a pretty strong bipartisan consensus.



I want vastly stronger oversight, not the general programs defunded. I have no idea why you would try and tie this to the Republican Party's larger scheme of obstuctionism however.

Any time they try to defund a program they disagree with its labeled obstructionist. I image this would as well.

 

[irishScott]

I just looked into this more and more than 2/3rds of the incidents (about 1,900 of the 2,700) involved cases where a foreign target being wiretapped went from being outside the US (no warrant required) to being inside the US (warrant required) without the NSA realizing it quickly enough. SUCH SCANDAL.

The issue here has been, and always has been, how horrible the scope of things that can be done LEGALLY is, not stupid crap like this.

Stupid crap like this? Apparently they abused the system close to 3000 times, without even trying. That's not "stupid crap", it's a quantitative data point of just how badly PRISM is put together and just how dangerous it is. It means that there are a number of ways some enterprising person could hide intentional abuse, and make it look like an honest accident.

I'm especially loving the part where they tried to conceal information from FISA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...5ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html?hpid=z1

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

The fact that you are downplaying the significance of this is rather pathetic. What's your angle? You just determined to prove the forum wrong or something?

 

[fskimospy]

Stupid crap like this? Apparently they abused the system close to 3000 times, without even trying. That's not "stupid crap", it's a quantitative data point of just how badly PRISM is put together and just how dangerous it is. It means that there are a number of ways some enterprising person could hide intentional abuse, and make it look like an honest accident.

No, I don't consider the inadvertent collection of data when someone crosses a national border that is identified and corrected to be a sign of how badly something is put together and/or how dangerous it is. Your mileage may vary, but since you have no idea how these programs are structured you're basically talking out of your ass.

I'm especially loving the part where they tried to conceal information from FISA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...5ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html?hpid=z1

The fact that you are downplaying the significance of this is rather pathetic. What's your angle? You just determined to prove the forum wrong or something?

I'm not downplaying the significance of hiding things from the FISA court, that's wrong. My position on this is absolutely crystal clear. These abuses are not nearly as significant to me as what can be done that is not considered an abuse.

 

[irishScott]

No, I don't consider the inadvertent collection of data when someone crosses a national border that is identified and corrected to be a sign of how badly something is put together and/or how dangerous it is. Your mileage may vary, but since you have no idea how these programs are structured you're basically talking out of your ass.



I'm not downplaying the significance of hiding things from the FISA court, that's wrong. My position on this is absolutely crystal clear. These abuses are not nearly as significant to me as what can be done that is not considered an abuse.

But they are abuses, and however minor they may be there are thousands of them, and the NSA has yet to reveal even a single detail of the 50-some-odd plots PRISM has supposedly prevented, not even the most vague generalities. Honestly the NSA's "need" for PRISM appears to be like many law enforcement agencies' apparent "need" for drones and the "need" for SWAT teams to serve no-knock warrants for drug possession.

So in my mind we have thousands of accidental intrusions and the potential for massive abuse, for no tangible benefit. That sounds like a pretty badly put together system to me.

Also we have no way of confirming the NSA "corrected" anything. I sincerely doubt they deleted the information they got from tracking area code 202 after they discovered the typo, or stopped tracking their targets just because they needed a warrant. They're a mad dog and they need to be reigned in, harshly.

 

[fskimospy]

But they are abuses, and however minor they may be there are thousands of them, and the NSA has yet to reveal even a single detail of the 50-some-odd plots PRISM has supposedly prevented, not even the most vague generalities. Honestly the NSA's "need" for PRISM appears to be like many law enforcement agencies apparent "need" for drones and the "need" for SWAT teams to serve no-knock warrants for drug possession.

So in my mind we have thousands of accidental intrusions and the potential for massive abuse, for no tangible benefit. That sounds like a pretty badly put together system to me.

I don't think that you are in a position to judge what our intelligence agencies need or what tangible benefits come from them. As I've said many times, I think that oversight on these activities is woefully inadequate, but even if it were improved to my standards you would still not have this information. You simply can't operate intelligence services that way.

Also, we have no way of confirming the NSA "corrected" anything. I sincerely doubt they deleted the information they got from tracking area code 202 after they discovered the typo.

Right, but once again that would be for oversight bodies to accomplish.

 

[irishScott]

I don't think that you are in a position to judge what our intelligence agencies need or what tangible benefits come from them. As I've said many times, I think that oversight on these activities is woefully inadequate, but even if it were improved to my standards you would still not have this information. You simply can't operate intelligence services that way.

IMO when the scope of the programs has this profound an impact, we not only can operate intelligence services that way, it's our duty to. Ideally the NSA would throw away the Constitution, have zero oversight and have the power to monitor what everyone was doing in the world at any given instant. That would create the ideal intelligence agency. However we have oversight, and on the huge issues like this one I fail to see why public debate shouldn't be one level of that.

When it comes to PRISM, most of Congress will not act, will not do their jobs, without public pressure. Without Snowden's leak they wouldn't even be talking about increased oversight.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I'm just trying to get you to see past your partisanship and realize that these programs are a result of a pretty strong bipartisan consensus.

I'm pretty sure the House just had a vote on these programs and the result was almost 50/50 to stop them. Clearly there's no strong bipartisan support, not even close by any reasonable definition of 'strong bipartisan support'.

The matter is highly contentious with members of both parties lining up on both sides of the issue.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Funny thing is that conservatives only started having a problem with it around January, 2009.

No. They started having problems "with it" after Snowden spoke up. That would be 2013, not 2009.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Not according to our courts they aren't.
-snip-

"Courtss"?

That would be which ones exactly?

Aside from possibly the FISA court (which really can't count because only the govt is represented) I don't recall ever hearing of any court ruling on these programs (PRISM and NUCLEON) in their current form. The ACLU only recently filed their suit. Are you implying that they're stupid, because they'd have to be to file if they have already been approved by the courts?

Fern

 

[Fern]

I just looked into this more and more than 2/3rds of the incidents (about 1,900 of the 2,700) involved cases where a foreign target being wiretapped went from being outside the US (no warrant required) to being inside the US (warrant required) without the NSA realizing it quickly enough. SUCH SCANDAL.

The issue here has been, and always has been, how horrible the scope of things that can be done LEGALLY is, not stupid crap like this.

So, you're 'cool' with the other one thousand abuses?

Oh, and it looks like just one incident can can include up to 3,000 people:

The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders,"

Fern

 

[Fern]

I can understand an error here or there. It is inevitable, people are humans and fallible. Just correct it and move on. But thousands per year is way beyond the pale.

I remember back in the good ole days when Bush was President and the Libs were going crazy about FISA and the Patriot Act, claiming any single incident of inappropriately violating the rights a person were tantamount to Bush using the Constitution to wipe his arse.

Now they dismiss 3,000 incidents as mere trivia and those who complain are criticized as just being partisan.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I find one of the more troubling aspects of this report the admission by the Chief Judge for the FISA that they are incapable of proper oversight. They lack the power and resources. That they have to rely upon the NSA to tell the truth because the FISA court have no investigative ability or power. Rely on the NSA to to be truthful? Holy shizz.

Fern