6 ms·
> And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive b
by jpdoctor 13y ago
> And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.
Oh thank god, all branches are providing oversight. So it's just as harmless as all those other programs being overseen by all branches of government.
Like TSA.
- mikeash 13y agoFunny how that works. Apparently we can't trust the executive branch, Congress, or federal judges to make sure they're abiding by the Constitution, and we do have some problems here.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- boot 13y agoI love how he says several times "we aren't listening to your phone calls". As if that suddenly makes everything better. Fuck me.
- coldtea 13y agoOr as if that makes it true. Wasn't there reports that warrantless wiretapping is widespread? They may not be listening to everybody's "phone calls", but how about activists, dissidents, whistleblowers, etc phone calls? How about people active in grassroots campaigns, from OWS to ecology, etc? How about people that work at EFF? What about journalists that are preparing a government corruption story, etc? Heck, they had files one mile long for people like ...John Lennon and MLK, back in the sixties/seventies.
- sinnerswing 13y agoOr he's just going to plead ignorance and maintain plausible deniability.
- DerekAlia 13y agoBut he is right, somebody isn't listening to it as you say it. Its just being saved in a HUGE database so when they decided you did something wrong that can be used against you.
- baddox 13y agoIt gets worse. Moments later, he says: "if anybody in government wanted to go further than just that top-line data and wanted to, for example, listen to Jackie Calmes’s phone call, they’d have to go back to a federal judge and — and — and indicate why, in fact, they were doing further — further probing." Great. So they can't listen to your phone call, unless they indicate why they want to listen to your phone call. I'm sure everyone involved in this program was cherry-picked to ensure that no one says "no" to any of these requests. Oh, and I'm sure all the logs (who asked who for permission, what the reasons were, which requests were granted or denied, etc.) are also conveniently "classified," which you should remember is different than "secret."
- rayiner 13y agoSo now you're objecting to the very concept of a warrant?
- baddox 13y agoI'm saying that the concept doesn't make sense when they're being issued by people who have very similar incentives to the people executing the warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution essentially says "the government cannot perform a search unless the government drafts a piece of paper saying that they can do a search."
- betterunix 13y agoDid FISC warrants suddenly start requiring probable cause? Did the court itself suddenly start scrutinizing requests (how would we even know)? Don't conflate FISC warrants issued for criminal investigations. FISC is barely even a speedbump when it comes to this sort of surveillance.
- rayiner 13y agoThe quote isn't talking about FISC warrants. Its talking about regular Article III warrants. What's deeply ironic about the outrage here is that FISC was created as an extra layer to safeguard privacy. FISC warrants give law enforcement officials permission to initiate an investigation, not to access information that would otherwise require an Article III warrant.
- deelowe 13y agoThey aren't listening. They are just recording them in case they want to listen later. Ohh, and they are listening... sometimes, like when there's a court order. Heck, I spoke with someone personally who used to work in one of their call screening centers. They sat in front of a computer all day and flagged snippets of calls, emails, and text that met certain requirements(e.g. words that would indicate a planned terrorist activity). It wasn't clear whether this was applied only to foreign or foreign and domestic conversations. Though most conversations were in english with a native accent.
- justncase80 13y agoAccording to the report they don't listen the voice of the calls, only the "metadata" such as the numbers the calls are made from and to, and when.
- dragonwriter 13y agoTwo different issues: The Verizon FISC order addresses only metadata. The PRISM presentation indicates that among the data captured from the providers involved in PRISM is VOIP data, which, would seem to be call contents.
- bmelton 13y agoThe best explanation I've seen for that is that they are just collecting the content in case it is needed later. If, for example, they see you making a lot of long-distance phone calls to numbers known to be ties to Al Qaeda, then they could 'get a warrant' to actually look at the PRISM data they've collected. In real life terms, it's like posting an NSA agent in every house in America, who promises to keep his eyes closed. Of course, he can hear everything you're saying, but he promises not to tell anyone unless you say something elsewhere that would give them cause to.
- sliverstorm 13y agoAs if that suddenly makes everything better Well, it does seem like most folks are primarily concerned that they will be listening to your phone calls. So maybe it doesn't make you feel better, but maybe it wasn't targeted at you. (I know, as if that makes anything better!)
- varjag 13y agoThe limiting factor here really is the lack of computational power to listen to everyone's phone calls. As soon as technology gets there, you can bet it'll be on the table.
- marshray 13y agoEvery call passes through numerous computers between the speaking parties. Why do you think the largest best-funded organizations in the world would lack the computational power to "listen"?
- betterunix 13y agoUsually telecom equipment is near the lower bound of the computer power needed to carry calls; there is not much room for advanced signal processing, speech-to-text, etc.
- varjag 13y agoThey are not getting through a single centralized location, and transcoding voice traffic does not require as much performance as voice recognition (the difference is several orders of magnitude). Your average telecom branch exchange station is not anywhere in the ballpark.
- ealloc 13y agoIt's also a straw man argument. Nobody ever claimed voice recordings were collected, all news sources were very clear about that. He's just distracting from the actual complaint, which is that all of the other data is collected.
- mtgx 13y agoNot to mention he is being very disingenuous because that "oversight" is extremely limited. Congress passes these laws in a hurry, trying to limit public debate as much as possible. Judges get pressed into signing whatever NSA/FBI wants them to sign (there was no denied FISA "general warrant" denied in 2011 and 2012, and probably none before either), and of course the president can't be trusted with this. He's in charge of it all.
- natrius 13y agoSurveys of the American people show that at least two of his three preconditions are correct. I think we're going to have some problems here.
- baddox 13y ago"Separation of powers" is such a bogus concept. We've got three groups of people in different office buildings with almost exactly the same set of incentives, and it's hammered into our heads that this somehow will cause government to police itself. I doubt anyone who didn't repeatedly hear the praises for separation of powers in school throughout their childhood would think that is even a remotely effective plan.
- justncase80 13y agoAnd the superior alternative is what?
- jlgreco 13y agoThe phrase "Democracy is terrible, but it is the best we've got" makes some sense. But "American Democracy is terrible, but it is the best we've got"? That's a new one to me.
- ace_of_spades 13y agoTransparency and the possibility for the people to review at least high level policy.
- baddox 13y agoSociety refusing to tolerate any group of people having a legal monopoly on the use of violence.
- mgarfias 13y agoThis please.
- betterunix 13y agoSeparation of powers is a good concept. The problem right now is that all three branches of government have been taken over by the right wing; there is little disagreement about these things. Separation of powers tends to work best when there is more than one opinion.
- rayiner 13y agoWhat exactly is harmful about the TSA? Annoying and stupid, sure, but as far as I can tell nothing more sinister than that.
- rdouble 13y agoThey've stolen $300 worth of stuff from my checked baggage and don't provide any means to get it back. There are dozens of similar stories. Not quite sinister, but beyond annoying and stupid.
- cheald 13y agoYou don't think that an agency that exists to condition the American people into the belief that a police state is "normal" is harmful?
- betterunix 13y agoI mean, aside from being a corrupt organization that wastes tax dollars and has done almost nothing to keep us safe, I suppose they are fine.
- epoxyhockey 13y agoHow about systematically irradiating 99% of the people that walk through their lines, without any independent study of the risks of such radiation? What happens when a terahertz antenna of unknown power is waved 2 feet in front of a male's genitals? 5 years of x-raying individuals, then taking all machines out of service shortly after the EU bans the machines? We will never know how many cancer cases arise from that program. Not to mention the cost of running an agency that has not even once caught a terrorist.
- jmadsen 13y agoExcuse me if I have this muddled, but being a Top Secret program, wouldn't those Congressmen be bound to silence on the matter anyway? Assuming you found one who bucked the trend and wasn't bankrupt of responsibility already, what could he actually do?