5 ms·

Am I the only one that noticed the exact phrasing of the question: "how many persons inside the United States have been spied upon by the NSA?" Last I checked,

Am I the only one that noticed the exact phrasing of the question: "how many persons inside the United States have been spied upon by the NSA?" Last I checked, not everyone inside the US was a citizen. In fact, I would posit that the VAST majority of people NSA is listening in on, are non-citizens. I am also curious why everyone is worried about NSA and not the FBI. NSA isn't interested in the US, they care about the rest of the world. This isn't anecdotal information.

ryegye24 14y ago
People are worried about the NSA because it was the NSA that was found to be responsible for the Room 641a scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) in which it was discovered that they were tapping massive amounts of domestic internet traffic without a warrant or probable cause. There are probably another 10 to 20 more of those rooms strategically placed around the country, all of which would be indiscriminately tapping domestic internet traffic (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al...). Additionally, the NSA employs more people than the FBI and CIA combined. If there's any agency tapping your internet usage it's the NSA.
- irishcoffee 14y ago
  Sincerely, correct me if I am wrong: This message I am about to post may travel through China before arriving at its destination, which may or not be back in the US. If this message goes from Point A (US) to Point B (China) to Point C (US) it is not purely domestic traffic. At Point C, where it enters the US, it should be possible to see that it came from China. It can be claimed then, that it is indeed not purely domestic traffic. If this is not correct, please forgive me.
7952 14y ago
The equal protection clause of the US constitution: no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Also the due process clause: [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . It does not differentiate between citizens and none-citizens.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms to "the people" - how do you suggest we enforce that one across borders? The US law only applies to the US. Same as in any other country.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Not entirely. It isn't clear that the US government can start killing Americans when they take weekend trips to Toronto without violating the Due Process clause.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Pretty sure killing people on a sovereign nation's soil might fall afoul of that nation's laws...
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        But all that would do would be cause an international incident and expose those who carry it out to threat of prosecution of not granted diplomatic immunity. The question is whether US law prevents it. THere are some cases to suggest that the bill of rights still governs to at least some extent when a US citizen is acted against by the US government in a foreign county.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  The EPC formally only binds the states, right? To the extent it binds the federal government is the extent it has been read into the due process clause.....
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Roles are much more muddled tbetween the agencies these days. FBI is now all over the world, NSA looks at the homeland too. I don't think it's part of a conscious effort, but more from a business/prestige standpoint. IE, every group wants all their own in house capabilities, to do everything. also, I'm much more comfortable with the FBI than the NSA. FBI seems to have a more grounded approach in what the could and should be doing, whereas the NSA seems more entrepreneurial, if that makes any sense to you.

ryegye24 14y ago

People are worried about the NSA because it was the NSA that was found to be responsible for the Room 641a scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) in which it was discovered that they were tapping massive amounts of domestic internet traffic without a warrant or probable cause. There are probably another 10 to 20 more of those rooms strategically placed around the country, all of which would be indiscriminately tapping domestic internet traffic (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al...). Additionally, the NSA employs more people than the FBI and CIA combined. If there's any agency tapping your internet usage it's the NSA.

irishcoffee 14y ago
Sincerely, correct me if I am wrong: This message I am about to post may travel through China before arriving at its destination, which may or not be back in the US. If this message goes from Point A (US) to Point B (China) to Point C (US) it is not purely domestic traffic. At Point C, where it enters the US, it should be possible to see that it came from China. It can be claimed then, that it is indeed not purely domestic traffic. If this is not correct, please forgive me.

7952 14y ago

The equal protection clause of the US constitution: no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Also the due process clause: [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . It does not differentiate between citizens and none-citizens.

Karunamon 14y ago
The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms to "the people" - how do you suggest we enforce that one across borders? The US law only applies to the US. Same as in any other country.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Not entirely. It isn't clear that the US government can start killing Americans when they take weekend trips to Toronto without violating the Due Process clause.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Pretty sure killing people on a sovereign nation's soil might fall afoul of that nation's laws...
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      But all that would do would be cause an international incident and expose those who carry it out to threat of prosecution of not granted diplomatic immunity. The question is whether US law prevents it. THere are some cases to suggest that the bill of rights still governs to at least some extent when a US citizen is acted against by the US government in a foreign county.
einhverfr 14y ago
The EPC formally only binds the states, right? To the extent it binds the federal government is the extent it has been read into the due process clause.....

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

Roles are much more muddled tbetween the agencies these days. FBI is now all over the world, NSA looks at the homeland too. I don't think it's part of a conscious effort, but more from a business/prestige standpoint. IE, every group wants all their own in house capabilities, to do everything. also, I'm much more comfortable with the FBI than the NSA. FBI seems to have a more grounded approach in what the could and should be doing, whereas the NSA seems more entrepreneurial, if that makes any sense to you.