3 ms·

> Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer direc

> Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer directly to “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume” operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-i...

lern_too_spel 8y ago
That article's author is very confused. "Full take" is in reference to other interception programs in war zones. The documents about MUSCULAR itself show that it filtered to particular data types sent to international regions and filtered that data to just the information on selected individuals. The same source previously also provided email metadata collection on everybody, but that program ended in 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-minin... Refer to the primary documents when you see articles like the one you posted with contradictory information like "full take" vs. "100,000 selectors" with a mere "millions of records every day."
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  The author is Barton Gellman, one of the reporters to whom Snowden leaked documents, and the lead at the Post for the team that shared the 2014 Pulitzer with the Guardian for the Snowden coverage. The article you posted is not about MUSCULAR. MUSCULAR did not require FISA authorization; that was kind of the point of structuring it the way they did.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    It doesn't matter who wrote the article. What matters is that it contradicts itself on what MUSCULAR is. My article is about a data collection program that used MUSCULAR as a source.
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      When you tell me to "refer to the primary documents when you see articles like the one you posted", it's relevant that Barton Gellman is one of a few people who have reviewed Snowden documents directly, including documents that the Post chose not to publish. I'm done with this conversation; it's clear you're not acting in good faith.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > it's clear you're not acting in good faith. I pointed out that the article you posted said the exact opposite of what you claimed it said (in addition to saying what you claimed it said). How is that not acting in good faith? If the article is contradictory, you need to go to the primary documents, which were available from The Guardian.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

That article's author is very confused. "Full take" is in reference to other interception programs in war zones. The documents about MUSCULAR itself show that it filtered to particular data types sent to international regions and filtered that data to just the information on selected individuals. The same source previously also provided email metadata collection on everybody, but that program ended in 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-minin... Refer to the primary documents when you see articles like the one you posted with contradictory information like "full take" vs. "100,000 selectors" with a mere "millions of records every day."

snowwrestler 8y ago
The author is Barton Gellman, one of the reporters to whom Snowden leaked documents, and the lead at the Post for the team that shared the 2014 Pulitzer with the Guardian for the Snowden coverage. The article you posted is not about MUSCULAR. MUSCULAR did not require FISA authorization; that was kind of the point of structuring it the way they did.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  It doesn't matter who wrote the article. What matters is that it contradicts itself on what MUSCULAR is. My article is about a data collection program that used MUSCULAR as a source.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    When you tell me to "refer to the primary documents when you see articles like the one you posted", it's relevant that Barton Gellman is one of a few people who have reviewed Snowden documents directly, including documents that the Post chose not to publish. I'm done with this conversation; it's clear you're not acting in good faith.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      > it's clear you're not acting in good faith. I pointed out that the article you posted said the exact opposite of what you claimed it said (in addition to saying what you claimed it said). How is that not acting in good faith? If the article is contradictory, you need to go to the primary documents, which were available from The Guardian.