4 ms·

Wait - what? Isn't it our leaders consistent position that "listening" without a specific warrant is wrong? Now I am really confused.

by spikels 13y ago

jordanthoms 13y ago
Well, clearly they thought that they could keep you in the dark about the fact that what they can do without a warrant actually extends this far. Obama's credibility is at an all time low.
a3n 13y ago
This is just an unusually stark demonstration of how it really works: One party stakes out a set of statements and positions with which it will pander to a portion of the population, and then actually do WTF ever they want. Another party stakes out a different set of statements and positions with which it will pander to a different portion of the population, and then do WTF ever they want to do. What both parties want to do is often surprisingly the same. We let them know what we want to be told, and then they cleverly tell it to us.
mpyne 13y ago
That's their position, yes, and was even the position Mueller gave in the unclassified briefing right before the Senator told him there was a conflict in what was said. I suspect that in the classified briefing the Senator was told something to the effect that phone calls are recorded without a warrant, possibly even that an analyst could flag someone's phone number to be recorded. Presumably whoever was giving the brief failed to make clear that the analyst would need a warrant to listen to the call, as I didn't see in the linked article a direct mention that the analyst could listen, only "tap in". IMHO this would still run afoul of wiretapping law but certainly the difference between "collect" and "analyze" is an area where NSA has been pushing the boundaries between what is "search and seizure" and what is everything else, so it is at least consistent with their other information collection programs.

4 ms·

Wait - what? Isn't it our leaders consistent position that "listening" without a specific warrant is wrong? Now I am really confused.

by spikels 13y ago

Wait - what? Isn't it our leaders consistent position that "listening" without a specific warrant is wrong? Now I am really confused.

jordanthoms 13y ago
Well, clearly they thought that they could keep you in the dark about the fact that what they can do without a warrant actually extends this far. Obama's credibility is at an all time low.
a3n 13y ago
This is just an unusually stark demonstration of how it really works: One party stakes out a set of statements and positions with which it will pander to a portion of the population, and then actually do WTF ever they want. Another party stakes out a different set of statements and positions with which it will pander to a different portion of the population, and then do WTF ever they want to do. What both parties want to do is often surprisingly the same. We let them know what we want to be told, and then they cleverly tell it to us.
mpyne 13y ago
That's their position, yes, and was even the position Mueller gave in the unclassified briefing right before the Senator told him there was a conflict in what was said. I suspect that in the classified briefing the Senator was told something to the effect that phone calls are recorded without a warrant, possibly even that an analyst could flag someone's phone number to be recorded. Presumably whoever was giving the brief failed to make clear that the analyst would need a warrant to listen to the call, as I didn't see in the linked article a direct mention that the analyst could listen, only "tap in". IMHO this would still run afoul of wiretapping law but certainly the difference between "collect" and "analyze" is an area where NSA has been pushing the boundaries between what is "search and seizure" and what is everything else, so it is at least consistent with their other information collection programs.