4 ms·

I meant that the NSA is only looking at your information if a judge suspects that you are a foreign agent. It will not look at your information to determine whe

I meant that the NSA is only looking at your information if a judge suspects that you are a foreign agent. It will not look at your information to determine whether you have done something else illegal, which is what it would do if it were part of a police state.

intslack 13y ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... >One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.
- lorendsr 13y ago
  That sounds illegal. In same article: >Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst. "Generally" should be always.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    So both the NSA and the DEA,IRS and ? are breaking the law. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE... How about they stop the illegal collection and then the illegal sharing cannot occur.
  - toufka 13y ago
    Except it wasn't and isn't. And that is the problem. Generally should be always, but we now know it's not. And then to add to the list. "Collect" should mean "obtain" and not "use", and "metadata" is actually a subset of, and not different from "data". And "transcripts" and "summaries" are actually a form "content". "US Citizen" mean's a person who lives in the US, not "51% likely based on this metric", and "direct access" does not depend on who owns the land in which the particular section of cable is buried. And the list goes on. These words mean something, and when 'always' slips to become 'generally' - we have a problem. And when the one doing the slipping is a titanic behemoth of the size of the NSA, with as little accountability as already exists, we have an even bigger problem. When the words used to assure us are twisted and misused, then the assurance does little. Trust is hard to earn back. Especially when we intelligent owners (US citizens) of the mechanisms and powers are not given access to their actual processes, or even their legal justifications.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    That sounds illegal. Face, meet palm
  - secthrowaway 13y ago
    It might be waived in the event of an imminent action. Sort it out after the threat of the action is over.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      And most important of all, hold people accountable if they're wrong about the "imminent action." Same with torture and other unethical activities. Think you can save the city from nuclear destruction by torturing the brown-skinned guy? Sure, go for it. But you'd better hope you're right, because (at least in a just world) that's the only way you're staying out of prison for the rest of your life.
sitkack 13y ago
If I run a program to look at communications and it decides that I may have done something of interest, would you look at my file then? Where is the separation between collecting and "looking" when various pieces of code automatically determine interest and connections?
funsa 13y ago
I'm not an American. So what you say does not apply to me, correct? What about Americans who are 2, 3 or 4 degrees removed from suspected foreign agents? Does 'looking' include automated processes that scan for, for lack of a better word, suspicious behavior?
infinotize 13y ago
A judge that is being presented cherry-picked information from the NSA, and who has no one presenting an opposing argument.
fche 13y ago
"NSA is only looking at your information" That's an overly narrow construing of the word "information". As you well know, metadata and location bits are considered "information" by anyone except the pen & trap zealots.
dreamfactory 13y ago
So you never heard of TIA and data mining?

intslack 13y ago

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... >One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

lorendsr 13y ago
That sounds illegal. In same article: >Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst. "Generally" should be always.
- sitkack 13y ago
  So both the NSA and the DEA,IRS and ? are breaking the law. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE... How about they stop the illegal collection and then the illegal sharing cannot occur.
- toufka 13y ago
  Except it wasn't and isn't. And that is the problem. Generally should be always, but we now know it's not. And then to add to the list. "Collect" should mean "obtain" and not "use", and "metadata" is actually a subset of, and not different from "data". And "transcripts" and "summaries" are actually a form "content". "US Citizen" mean's a person who lives in the US, not "51% likely based on this metric", and "direct access" does not depend on who owns the land in which the particular section of cable is buried. And the list goes on. These words mean something, and when 'always' slips to become 'generally' - we have a problem. And when the one doing the slipping is a titanic behemoth of the size of the NSA, with as little accountability as already exists, we have an even bigger problem. When the words used to assure us are twisted and misused, then the assurance does little. Trust is hard to earn back. Especially when we intelligent owners (US citizens) of the mechanisms and powers are not given access to their actual processes, or even their legal justifications.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  That sounds illegal. Face, meet palm
- secthrowaway 13y ago
  It might be waived in the event of an imminent action. Sort it out after the threat of the action is over.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    And most important of all, hold people accountable if they're wrong about the "imminent action." Same with torture and other unethical activities. Think you can save the city from nuclear destruction by torturing the brown-skinned guy? Sure, go for it. But you'd better hope you're right, because (at least in a just world) that's the only way you're staying out of prison for the rest of your life.

sitkack 13y ago

If I run a program to look at communications and it decides that I may have done something of interest, would you look at my file then? Where is the separation between collecting and "looking" when various pieces of code automatically determine interest and connections?

funsa 13y ago

I'm not an American. So what you say does not apply to me, correct? What about Americans who are 2, 3 or 4 degrees removed from suspected foreign agents? Does 'looking' include automated processes that scan for, for lack of a better word, suspicious behavior?

infinotize 13y ago

A judge that is being presented cherry-picked information from the NSA, and who has no one presenting an opposing argument.

fche 13y ago

"NSA is only looking at your information" That's an overly narrow construing of the word "information". As you well know, metadata and location bits are considered "information" by anyone except the pen & trap zealots.

dreamfactory 13y ago

So you never heard of TIA and data mining?