5 ms·

That sounds illegal. In same article: >Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized

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

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.