Verizon under FISA order to turn over all phone records for all customers to government

[Merentha]

I'm against reading of random emails without a warrant specifying a specific person with probable cause. We have constitutional protections against broad warrants. They need to specify a specific person with PC they are doing something wrong to delve into private conversations. But I'm for storing general records of cell phone data (not actual messages) which are examined for only who is calling whom. I don't think you have a constitutional right to call a terrorist without the government knowing. I am worried about how this could be abused though when a politically motivated person starts looking at or sharing who you are calling, having nothing to do with protecting the country from terrorists, crime, etc.

If the terrorist is a known entity, surely you can have a warrant to track the number of incoming calls to this person, yes? I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the people who call the known entity having their records pulled either. Or even other associates. But monitoring everyone for profiling? Lets not, thanks.

[peterbound]

If the terrorist is a known entity, surely you can have a warrant to track the number of incoming calls to this person, yes? I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the people who call the known entity having their records pulled either. Or even other associates. But monitoring everyone for profiling? Lets not, thanks.

Your situation is usually how it happens.

Again, i'm surprised at the outrage here. I guess of the two people that frequent this board that actually know anything about this (LoB and I), it's not really all that shocking.

There are still a lot of laws in place that provide huge fucking layers of protection to US citizens. We've /always/ had the tech to monitor our people, hell, we've been doing it since the start of warfare, it's just gotten a lot better (see PRISM).

The monitoring programs in place are set there to protect us and our interests. You think some sigint operator is going to sit down and copy your call? You think some analyst is going to take the time and write a report on your bullshit conversation to your mom/dad/lover/friend? Nope, not unless one of those folks meet some other markers.

To me this is feigned rage. It gives you something to be angry at, even though you know it's been going on for a long time. I also find it interesting that the Traitor who leaked this stuff, a man we trusted with a TS clearance is somehow being applauded. He is no better than a spy, and he did nothing that will change the system. All he did was make us weaker in our ability to defend ourselves.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

To me this is feigned rage. It gives you something to be angry at, even though you know it's been going on for a long time. I also find it interesting that the Traitor who leaked this stuff, a man we trusted with a TS clearance is somehow being applauded. He is no better than a spy, and he did nothing that will change the system. All he did was make us weaker in our ability to defend ourselves.

Someone taking a personal risk to act against the Government when it's acting against the interests of the people is a hero, even if his actions turn out to be ineffective.

[Merentha]

Your situation is usually how it happens.

And this is insufficient for some reason?

I also find it interesting that the Traitor who leaked this stuff, a man we trusted with a TS clearance is somehow being applauded. He is no better than a spy, and he did nothing that will change the system. All he did was make us weaker in our ability to defend ourselves.

Ridiculous.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

It seems that non-us citiziens have a even bigger problem. The surveillence by the US secret service in Europe is outrageous. It is in breach of European law.

To stay in the picture one of you made with the house: it is bad when your own goverment searches without reason your house and car, but what would you say if for example the Swedish, French, Chinese, or Saudi-arabian goverment came to your house, searches everything, argueing that though this may be forbidden under the law of your country under their law it is fine. This is totally impertinent.

All the German newspapers (and I am sure in the rest of Europe it will be the same), are full of interviews and guidelines how to avoid services which use US servers (It is not easy, in some cases not yet possible). I think this is the way to go. If it hits the business of goggle, facebook and all the other US companies, perhaps it will stop.

So there's that. Leaving aside the domestic backlash (which I won't comment on because everything I would say has pretty much already been said), I'm guessing that the foreign relations element of this will be far, far worse.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Senator Obama v President Obama:

[peterbound]

Bullshit. That was back in 2008, with intercept officers making a game out of listening in on the details of phone calls from aid workers and Army personnel making calls to their loved ones from Iraq.

There are no protections built into place to stop this, other than a rubber stamp from a secret court. No one can sue, because of ridiculous bar set to prove standing, and because the government is invoking the bullshit state secrets exception. The government is implicitly making the argument that anyone can be a terrorist, so they have to monitor everyone.

You've obviously never served in the military, or if you had, you've never deployed.

When you are calling 'DSN' or 'USO', or even on a 'Hook Flash', you know that buy using those phones, you are consenting to being monitored. Little outrage there.

As for the Sat Phones? If I'm in a war zone, and i'm speaking a foreign language (as these guys look to be, as Linguist are the ones making the claims), while calling back to the states? I'm going to be a little more cautious, because yes, there is a likelihood i'm going to get tagged.

What it omits in the article is that these are short clips used to determine need of copying. They might have listened for a few second (15 at most) and determined no need to copy, and the call was dropped. Again, not all that spun up about it, and not seeing anything to get all that pissed about.

[peterbound]

And this is insufficient for some reason?

Ridiculous.

Yes, it does.

Would you have us give up all our safe guards? All our monitoring? Do you realize how difficult that would make the job of keeping us safe in a digital world?

Paint me the picture of how you would conduct an intelligence gathering agency. Please? Would you make a carte blanche statement that all US citizens are off limits? Even ones communicating with known/suspected terrorists? Would you wipe out all the markers for quick copying/sampling (which was what was described above). That would make the job of the NSA very very difficult, if not impossible. Now I know in a perfect world, we wouldn't need agencies like this, but we do, and they do their job very well. The amount of shit that we /don't/ have happen to us as a nation is amazing, and having agencies in place like the NSA make sure we don't live a more chaotic world.

I'm here to tell you, for a fact, there are heavy and sacrosanct laws on the books. Laws that are widely respected in the intel communities that protect US citizens.

[peterbound]

So, basically, if you want to make contact with another person, you should expect to be monitored and be okay with that, because terrorism. Got it.

If you are in Iraq/afghanistan and using the army's phone, ya.

It's not just terrorism they are monitoring for. They are looking for OPSEC leaks, poor data sends, a whole list of shit.

[peterbound]

It seems that non-us citiziens have a even bigger problem. The surveillence by the US secret service in Europe is outrageous. It is in breach of European law.

To stay in the picture one of you made with the house: it is bad when your own goverment searches without reason your house and car, but what would you say if for example the Swedish, French, Chinese, or Saudi-arabian goverment came to your house, searches everything, argueing that though this may be forbidden under the law of your country under their law it is fine. This is totally impertinent.

All the German newspapers (and I am sure in the rest of Europe it will be the same), are full of interviews and guidelines how to avoid services which use US servers (It is not easy, in some cases not yet possible). I think this is the way to go. If it hits the business of goggle, facebook and all the other US companies, perhaps it will stop.

You guys do know we spy on each other, right?

Other nations have agencies that do the SAME SHIT that we do. Both to their citizens, and to the citizens of other nations.

What world you live in that you think this didn't occur? You think all the warnings about what you say online or over the phones was all in jest?

This shit happens, and has been since the interwebs and cell phones came about. The fucking naiveté here is disturbing.

[peterbound]

Also, just a general question for the crowd:

Name me one person, one person you know that has had their lives negatively effected by NSA monitoring them. Just one.

[snake]

Also, just a general question for the crowd:

Name me one person, one person you know that has had their lives negatively effected by NSA monitoring them. Just one.

Wait a few days and we shall find out. :)

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Your situation is usually how it happens.

Again, i'm surprised at the outrage here. I guess of the two people that frequent this board that actually know anything about this (LoB and I), it's not really all that shocking.

There are still a lot of laws in place that provide huge fucking layers of protection to US citizens. We've /always/ had the tech to monitor our people, hell, we've been doing it since the start of warfare, it's just gotten a lot better (see PRISM).

The monitoring programs in place are set there to protect us and our interests. You think some sigint operator is going to sit down and copy your call? You think some analyst is going to take the time and write a report on your bullshit conversation to your mom/dad/lover/friend? Nope, not unless one of those folks meet some other markers.

The concern that some low level operator or analyst is going to read our emails for shits and giggles is a relatively small one. The potential for high level abuse, on the other hand, is staggering. This is a government that has demonstrated the willingness to abuse it's power and it has data its hands that J Edgar Hoover, in his wildest wet-dreams could not imagine having. The Stasi, Gestapo, and KGB would have been envious. While we all strongly suspected that this level on monitoring was going on (the giant data centers in Utah weren't built so that the NSA could store high def 3d porn)

The main issue with what you're saying is that you want everybody to trust the NSA in particular and the intelligence community as a whole. Trust that this is really saving us from the scary terrorists (who statistically are a pretty small threat). Trust that they'll never abuse this power or allow an unscrupulous congressman upper level Executive branch official to abuse it. Trust that they have the best interests of the American people in mind.

Name me one person, one person you know that has had their lives negatively effected by NSA monitoring them. Just one.

1. How would we know? It's all secret.

2. The potential for abuse is huge concern.

[Seli]

So there's that. Leaving aside the domestic backlash (which I won't comment on because everything I would say has pretty much already been said), I'm guessing that the foreign relations element of this will be far, far worse.

Perhaps, but the USA (and some others) have been listening to European communications, including allies, for decades (Echelon). And apparently for example the Dutch Intelligence Agency has received information originating from the PRISM program. Which surprised me somewhat positively, I would expect them to give information to the NSA/CIA/etc not receive it.

[peterbound]

Spare us the dramatics. The NSA et. al. can do their jobs without monitoring everyone. Now I know all the fearmongering authoritarians would go around getting the vapors in such a world, but I think we'd be okay.

No. The NSA could go through the same channels as outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Conduct an investigation. Establish probable cause. Obtain a warrant. There is enough railroading of innocent people that already happens even with these protections in place. We don't need to make it easier for the government to do that.

Yes

What, their job to know everything about everyone? Oh fucking well, they can go cry a fucking river.

Secret safeguards. Secret courts. Secret orders. Notice a common thread?

First: Fuck mulitquote

They don't monitor everyone. You know that, and for someone wanting to spare the dramatics, you sure bring it in spades.

They do establish probable cause, they do get warrants, they do build a case. However, because of the nature of the data they have to gain those rights in 'secret'. You want daddy DRNSA going down to the night court and getting a warrant to tap a phone? The enemy is smart enough to monitor that type of shit. That's not drama, that's a fact jack. The judges that authorize that type of 'tapping' have to do so in secret. No different that when they are doing clandestine taps on criminals phones. All PRISM did was give NSA the ability to get more data with those warrants.

I think part of the problem here for the majority of the public is the vast ignorance on how stuff is collected. The sad fact is, the NSA can't really defend it's self due to the nature of the job.

People want to feel important, so they create this reality that they are being spied upon. Hate to break it to you, but you probably aren't all that interesting, and have very little to worry about when it comes to being monitored.

[Fragile Bird]

So, basically, if you want to make contact with another person, you should expect to be monitored and be okay with that, because terrorism. Got it.

Actually, you should think of it as, if you own a smart phone.

[peterbound]

The concern that some low level operator or analyst is going to read our emails for shits and giggles is a relatively small one. The potential for high level abuse, on the other hand, is staggering. This is a government that has demonstrated the willingness to abuse it's power and it has data its hands that J Edgar Hoover, in his wildest wet-dreams could not imagine having. The Stasi, Gestapo, and KGB would have been envious. While we all strongly suspected that this level on monitoring was going on (the giant data centers in Utah weren't built so that the NSA could store high def 3d porn)

The main issue with what you're saying is that you want everybody to trust the NSA in particular and the intelligence community as a whole. Trust that this is really saving us from the scary terrorists (who statistically are a pretty small threat). Trust that they'll never abuse this power or allow an unscrupulous congressman upper level Executive branch official to abuse it. Trust that they have the best interests of the American people in mind.

1. How would we know? It's all secret.

2. The potential for abuse is huge concern.

Again, I love that you live in a reality that you don't think this abuse has already occurred.

I wouldn't say trust the NSA, what I would say, is 'Don't break the Law' and you should be alright.

[snake]

The guy who wrote the Patriot Act is saying that the government has gone too far and is abusing the law as it was intended. lol

Story

[Merentha]

If you are in Iraq/afghanistan and using the army's phone, ya.

It's not just terrorism they are monitoring for. They are looking for OPSEC leaks, poor data sends, a whole list of shit.

I am actually okay with this, mostly.

Paint me the picture of how you would conduct an intelligence gathering agency. Please? Would you make a carte blanche statement that all US citizens are off limits? Even ones communicating with known/suspected terrorists? Would you wipe out all the markers for quick copying/sampling (which was what was described above). That would make the job of the NSA very very difficult, if not impossible. Now I know in a perfect world, we wouldn't need agencies like this, but we do, and they do their job very well. The amount of shit that we /don't/ have happen to us as a nation is amazing, and having agencies in place like the NSA make sure we don't live a more chaotic world.

I believe I had already made clear that monitoring known, or even reasonably suspected, terrorists was perfectly acceptable and that having the technical capability to do so was also perfectly fine, as long as it was not used constantly against people who have no reason of suspicion whatsoever. They can damn well get a warrant like everyone else. They can even make a claim that the need to get a wiretap order is in secret. They just need to have a reason to monitor someone first.

I'm here to tell you, for a fact, there are heavy and sacrosanct laws on the books. Laws that are widely respected in the intel communities that protect US citizens.

Oh good! Now I feel so much better. I'm sure that if these sacrosanct laws were ever broken, the secret communities that secretly watch us would disclose them voluntarily.

Name me one person, one person you know that has had their lives negatively effected by NSA monitoring them. Just one.

Just as you can, I'm sure, disclose all of the wonderful things this monitoring has done for us? Even one? We can't, because its done in secret. You ask us to trust unconditionally that nothing is abused and that the program is essential for safety. Moreover, you ask us to trust that the program will always be free of abuse. preemptive edit: Actually, you don't. You're asking us to trust that known abuse and unknown security is worth it. The hell?

They don't monitor everyone.

They...didn't grab the metadata of every Verizon call made within a rewewing three month period, then? I suppose that technically isn't everyone.

I wouldn't say trust the NSA, what I would say, is 'Don't break the Law' and you should be alright.

Fuck this sentiment.

[peterbound]

Just as you can, I'm sure, disclose all of the wonderful things this monitoring has done for us? Even one? We can't, because its done in secret. You ask us to trust unconditionally that nothing is abused and that the program is essential for safety. Moreover, you ask us to trust that the program will always be free of abuse. preemptive edit: Actually, you don't. You're asking us to trust that known abuse and unknown security is worth it. The hell?

I thought as much.

All i'm asking is for one person to name someone that has been brought in, charged with wrongly, or harassed due to NSA monitoring them, and gathering data on their person.

It actually should be easy to do. If they are charged with something, they /will/ be told where the data came from. You've got to know someone.