3 ms·

Potential future abuse, whether due to laws becoming more permissive or a radical in-agency culture change that led to more people ignoring the law, is certainl

Potential future abuse, whether due to laws becoming more permissive or a radical in-agency culture change that led to more people ignoring the law, is certainly concerning. As are current abuses. I just believe that the capabilities provided under the powers currently given to the agency are worth the abuses and potential future abuse. If I thought there was much chance that in the future, law enforcement and intelligence would not remain separate, my decision would change. I would prefer to live in a free unsafe state than a police state.

EthanHeilman 13y ago
How do you answer questions of the NSA's known past involvement in targeting political figures such as Martin Luther King[1], US journalists, and US antiwar activists? The NSA was known to pass this intelligence to LE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MINARET#Domestic_targets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MINARET#Domestic_target...
- lorendsr 13y ago
  MINARET was used in the 60's and 70's. It led to the passing of FISA, which made it illegal to look at or pass on US citizen data unless a judge suspected them of being a foreign agent.
  - EthanHeilman 13y ago
    The NSA did these things both pre-FISA and post-FISA. For example: * 1980-present. MAIN CORE, which is shared between CIA, FBI, NSA, Contains data on 8 million Americans and is used by LE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core * ?-Present the DEA SOD program which uses NSA intelligence for drug cases. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05... And these are just the cases we know about, they are likely only the tip of the iceberg. Lorendsr, given this evidence and your previous statements that, "If I thought there was much chance that in the future, law enforcement and intelligence would not remain separate, my decision would change.", are you considering changing your decision?
    - lorendsr 13y ago
      I don't believe the NSA should be giving data (or even just "tips") on citizens to LE. It's either illegal or done under a law I don't know about. Do you know what this is talking about? >FISA surveillance was originally supposed to be used only in certain specific, authorized national security investigations, but information sharing rules implemented after 9/11 allows the NSA to hand over information to traditional domestic law-enforcement agencies, without any connection to terrorism or national security investigations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
      - EthanHeilman 13y ago
        No, and I had not read that article, thank you. I do not know the law, if any exists, that allows that, although it violates most readings of the 4th Amendment.
        mpyne 13y ago
        The legal principle is that once the government legitimately comes into possession of evidence, it doesn't have to "pretend to have not seen it". What this means is that if a given surveillance transcript is obtained legally (which is easy to do for foreign communications, even if a U.S. person is a party to the conversation), that it can be legally passed to LE. Once LE knows about it, they don't have to "close their eyes" to any U.S. nationals on the transcript, similar to how the police are not required to ignore evidence in plain sight (even if it wasn't listed specifically on the warrant). By this route it is possible to pass incriminating evidence to LE about U.S. nationals even without a warrant, as long as one of the parties to the communication in question is actually a foreigner.

EthanHeilman 13y ago

How do you answer questions of the NSA's known past involvement in targeting political figures such as Martin Luther King[1], US journalists, and US antiwar activists? The NSA was known to pass this intelligence to LE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MINARET#Domestic_targets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MINARET#Domestic_target...

lorendsr 13y ago
MINARET was used in the 60's and 70's. It led to the passing of FISA, which made it illegal to look at or pass on US citizen data unless a judge suspected them of being a foreign agent.
- EthanHeilman 13y ago
  The NSA did these things both pre-FISA and post-FISA. For example: * 1980-present. MAIN CORE, which is shared between CIA, FBI, NSA, Contains data on 8 million Americans and is used by LE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core * ?-Present the DEA SOD program which uses NSA intelligence for drug cases. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05... And these are just the cases we know about, they are likely only the tip of the iceberg. Lorendsr, given this evidence and your previous statements that, "If I thought there was much chance that in the future, law enforcement and intelligence would not remain separate, my decision would change.", are you considering changing your decision?
  - lorendsr 13y ago
    I don't believe the NSA should be giving data (or even just "tips") on citizens to LE. It's either illegal or done under a law I don't know about. Do you know what this is talking about? >FISA surveillance was originally supposed to be used only in certain specific, authorized national security investigations, but information sharing rules implemented after 9/11 allows the NSA to hand over information to traditional domestic law-enforcement agencies, without any connection to terrorism or national security investigations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
    - EthanHeilman 13y ago
      No, and I had not read that article, thank you. I do not know the law, if any exists, that allows that, although it violates most readings of the 4th Amendment.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        The legal principle is that once the government legitimately comes into possession of evidence, it doesn't have to "pretend to have not seen it". What this means is that if a given surveillance transcript is obtained legally (which is easy to do for foreign communications, even if a U.S. person is a party to the conversation), that it can be legally passed to LE. Once LE knows about it, they don't have to "close their eyes" to any U.S. nationals on the transcript, similar to how the police are not required to ignore evidence in plain sight (even if it wasn't listed specifically on the warrant). By this route it is possible to pass incriminating evidence to LE about U.S. nationals even without a warrant, as long as one of the parties to the communication in question is actually a foreigner.