PRISM: NSA/FBI Mining Internet Data since 2007

[tigerfan482]

Multiply that one misguided effort to promote justice through dubious means by just how immensely wide the scope and reach of our national surveillance state is.... while there are those who genuinely believe they are on the side of the good guys even using such disreputable methods, it destroys the essence of what we claim to be proud of as Americans.

Evidence?

 

[palbert]

I am continually bemused by those asking for proof that NSA/FBI has targeted "US persons," or otherwise abused the programs.

Were it not for Snowden the existence of these programs would not have gained currency. It is reluctantly revealed that these programs have been successful _____ (insert last number you've heard) times. We can hardly expect the failures or abuse of the programs to be revealed. Now we find that the NSA has been "least untruthful" (i.e., lied) to Congress. We are in a situation where Senators who wish to correct a "misleading" statement on the NSA website have to do so in a classified attachment to their letter. Proceedings supporting and challenging these programs are cloaked in national security secrecy, and those challenging the proceedings are required to prove the underlying orders are illegal - an interesting burden given they presumptively have been found lawful by the FISA Court.

From this those concerned about these programs are expected to generate proof?

Give me a break!

 

[JayHawk]

I am continually bemused by those asking for proof that NSA/FBI has targeted "US persons," or otherwise abused the programs.

Were it not for Snowden the existence of these programs would not have gained currency. It is reluctantly revealed that these programs have been successful _____ (insert last number you've heard) times. We can hardly expect the failures or abuse of the programs to be revealed. Now we find that the NSA has been "least untruthful" (i.e., lied) to Congress. We are in a situation where Senators who wish to correct a "misleading" statement on the NSA website have to do so in a classified attachment to their letter. Proceedings supporting and challenging these programs are cloaked in national security secrecy, and those challenging the proceedings are required to prove the underlying orders are illegal - an interesting burden given they presumptively have been found lawful by the FISA Court.

From this those concerned about these programs are expected to generate proof?

Give me a break!

In what part did NSA lie? The collections on Americans? Please read again about the TRUTH being sought...

What you are experiencing is confirmation bias... it is like a collection of tin foil hatters getting so close and in such number that they develop a spark of static electricity and demand it is proof of alien life.

Please feel free to read again my previously linked material. The NSA did not admit any such thing as you all here suggest. It is merely confirmation bias on the part of the journalist looking for that popping headline.

Should we have a conversation about what is acceptable and what is not for our intelligence agencies? Absolutely. But to suggest malfeasance because someone wants a hits story is ignorant.

A Geek’s Guide to the NSA Scandal: What You May Not Know About Data Collection

That and now the unsung hero of the information revolution is fleeing to communist strongman countries where freedom is not even an illusion? Fucking laughable. I wonder how he is bartering his way with those four laptops of stolen data.

 

[Sausy]

Misguided? No that would be you, Lostlover and Tigerfan here. Snowden may be clearly less than he seemed to present himself but you think our people are better? you're so cynical about everything else virtually, but here trust a vast, deeply hidden surveillance state structure? More like there are no angels in this battle, and our guys are closer to the devils we despise than we'd care to admit.

 

[palbert]

@ JayHawk; Post #223 You are invited - after removing your feet from the apple pie in which they are so firmly planted - to counter-source my misgivings. I have sourced (throughout this Thread) all of my positions.

In this discussion we must recall President Eisenhower (himself no slacker when it came to foreign intelligence; witness Project Homerun):

.... The total influence (of the military-industrial complex) — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex (emphasis in sourced document)

We should harken to those words even if from a different time.

The effective oversight of these NSA/FBI programs is belied by Maine Senator Susan Collins, who, if anyone was, was entitled to be "read in:"

Collins, who served as the top-ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee last year and is a member of the intelligence committee this session, said she hadn't been briefed on the sweeping internet data collection program before The Guardian reported on it last week.

Collins said she never had access to the "highly compartmentalized information," and dismissed President Obama's claim that members of Congress could have requested a briefing on the surveillance program. "How can you ask when you don't know the program exists?" Collins asked, as quoted by the Huffington Post.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ranking-sen-says-she-was-never-briefed-on

I have read the Geek's Guide. The author draws distinctions without difference to the issue at hand. And if he knows so much why isn't he in jail?

 

[palbert]

Two instances of NSA over-reach:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, ruled Wednesday (i.e., June 12, 2013) that it has no objection to the release of a 2011 opinion of the court, which found that some of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs under the FISA Amendments Act, were unconstitutional.

A 2011 FISC court ruling had concluded that some of the NSA’s surveillance programs had violated sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, a law aimed at protecting American citizens from surveillance programs targeted at foreigners.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-no...-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023#

DNI James Clapper's statements to Congress that NSA does "not wittingly" collect data on Americans. He knew that response to be false, and later stated it was the "least untruthful" way he could answer.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html

 

[JayHawk]

@ JayHawk; Post #223 You are invited - after removing your feet from the apple pie in which they are so firmly planted - to counter-source my misgivings. I have sourced (throughout this Thread) all of my positions.

In this discussion we must recall President Eisenhower (himself no slacker when it came to foreign intelligence; witness Project Homerun):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex (emphasis in sourced document)

We should harken to those words even if from a different time.

The effective oversight of these NSA/FBI programs is belied by Maine Senator Susan Collins, who, if anyone was, was entitled to be "read in:"



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ranking-sen-says-she-was-never-briefed-on

I have read the Geek's Guide. The author draws distinctions without difference to the issue at hand. And if he knows so much why isn't he in jail?

First, fuck Eisenhower, they had no clue what intelligence was in his day.

Second, Ole boy isn't in jail because we aren't a tyrannical overbearing society; which is something folks would like desperately to believe so they can justify why so much sucks around them but there is no 'there' there. All the conspiracies are simply a society that has out grown god and is looking for new bogey men

Finally, Collins was a HLS committee member last year which would not have been briefed and this year if she hasn't asked what her committee oversees that she was not privy to then how the fuck does she expect to do her job? The VERY first thing I ask for after walking behind the fifty five doors is "What don't I know about that I should to do this job..." If she is that incompetent then the state who voted for her deserves incompetence.

 

[JayHawk]

Two instances of NSA over-reach:



http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-no...-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023#

DNI James Clapper's statements to Congress that NSA does "not wittingly" collect data on Americans. He knew that response to be false, and later stated it was the "least untruthful" way he could answer.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html

Hmmm weird... so you are saying the system that was setup to provide checks and balances was providing checks and balances.... fuckin weird shit.

Next you will be telling this gravity thing is sticking around.

 

[tigerfan482]

I am continually bemused by those asking for proof that NSA/FBI has targeted "US persons," or otherwise abused the programs.

Were it not for Snowden the existence of these programs would not have gained currency. It is reluctantly revealed that these programs have been successful _____ (insert last number you've heard) times. We can hardly expect the failures or abuse of the programs to be revealed. Now we find that the NSA has been "least untruthful" (i.e., lied) to Congress. We are in a situation where Senators who wish to correct a "misleading" statement on the NSA website have to do so in a classified attachment to their letter. Proceedings supporting and challenging these programs are cloaked in national security secrecy, and those challenging the proceedings are required to prove the underlying orders are illegal - an interesting burden given they presumptively have been found lawful by the FISA Court.

From this those concerned about these programs are expected to generate proof?

Give me a break!

First off, the existence of a program that has technical capability is no proof of how that capability is used. Snowden released (and the Guardian only printed a partial) PowerPoint of the PRISM program and a copy of a Verizon warrant that was legally issued by a court. What Snowden didn't provide was evidence of the government performing mass surveillance (or any surveillance at all) on American citizens. You're championing Snowden for gathering evidence and releasing it to the public about the existence of a technical capability, yet you don't seem to expect the same level of disclosure from him of proof that it has been or ever will be used against Americans. He claimed to have unprecedented access to these files and that he could wiretap anyone, yet he provided no proof at all of that portion.

So you're right. I wouldn't expect the NSA to release evidence of wrongdoing because they haven't made any claims that any wrongdoing occurred. In fact, they make the claim that there has been no wrongdoing at all. So the burden of proof in on Edward Snowden to prove that the wrongdoing has occurred, which he has clearly failed to do.

The "least untruthful" quote you are incorrectly attributing to the NSA instead of the correct person, James Clapper. I also believe you are mischaracterizing the letter from the Senators to the NSA. From reading it, it seems to me that the NSA released a fact sheet to try and answer questions the public may have and that the Senators interpreted one of the statements as being misleading, based on classified information they were aware of, and asked that the agency correct the statement. Here is the link to the document: Link. As of this moment, the NSA has removed the document and we will see what they put up as a correction.

Finally, it is nothing but reasonable to review classified programs in classified courts. The government isn't going to publicly reveal all of its classified information simply because someone wants to challenge it in court. That's the whole reason the FISC was created by Congress. And yes, if someone want to challenge an order of the court, the onus is on them to prove it is illegal, as it is in all cases that go before any court in this country. If the FISC finds something lawful, then they are the the arbiter of classified information, as established by Congress (a Constitutionally granted responsibility) and so it is by definition legal.

So yes. People who claim illegal activities are taking place are required to provide proof. It would be the same as the government going to a court and saying "We believe palbert is a drug dealer. We don't have any proof or reasonable suspicion, but just let us go into his house to look for some and we'll come back to you."

Misguided? No that would be you, Lostlover and Tigerfan here. Snowden may be clearly less than he seemed to present himself but you think our people are better? you're so cynical about everything else virtually, but here trust a vast, deeply hidden surveillance state structure? More like there are no angels in this battle, and our guys are closer to the devils we despise than we'd care to admit.

I've seen no evidence of a deep, hidden surveillance state structure. I see plenty of proof that Snowden is a liar.

Two instances of NSA over-reach:

http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-no...-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023#
This is the perfect example of the NSA developing a surveillance program, taking it to the court, and the court finding it wasn't legal. Rubber stamp my ass. The system seems to work just fine.

DNI James Clapper's statements to Congress that NSA does "not wittingly" collect data on Americans. He knew that response to be false, and later stated it was the "least untruthful" way he could answer.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html

Let's go with the whole back and forth to get the context under which he answered.

Wyden: "And this is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer, because I know Sen. Feinstein wants to move on.
"Last summer the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, '... the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.'
"The reason I'm asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don't really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper: "No, sir."
Wyden: "It does not."
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."
Wyden: "All right. Thank you. I'll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer."

So I'm not going to expect any of you people with predisposed feelings of hostility towards the government to really read or try to understand this, but for the others, I will explain to you exactly what happened here. I have worked with some people who have worked in the intelligence field before, and my experience with them is where I am getting some of this. First off, it was a loaded question, asked in a yes or no fashion, which was designed to trip someone up. Second, in the intelligence community, the term collect is used to refer to a situation in which you focus your resources on a specific target and use those resources to get the information you need from that target. Third, and most important, metadata, such as that the Verizon warrant specifies, isn't legally considered data belonging to a specific individual, and as such, isn't considered data of any person until such time as that metadata is time correlated with an individual person. So a phone number is nothing but a phone number until it is associated with an individual at that point in time. So in 2011, that phone number may have belonged to Bob Smith. In 2012, that phone number may belong to Jane Doe. They aren't identifiable pieces of information until time correlated, at which point they are then considered data belonging to an individual. According to the warrant, Verizon was required to give ALL of its metadata from all calls that passed through its networks to the NSA. The data only included phones numbers, durations of calls, and transactional data. It specifically prohibits the collection of personally identifiable information (name, address, and financial information) as well as the content of any calls.

So yes - in the intelligence (and legal) worlds, what James Clapper said was correct. And his attempts to explain it to an uncleared public audience was that it was the "least untruthful" he could be without divulging classified information used to frame his answer to what was specifically asked to be a yes or no question.

 

[Kulindahr]

That and now the unsung hero of the information revolution is fleeing to communist strongman countries where freedom is not even an illusion?

He hasn't been to one.

That you make the claim he has is tragic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Misguided? No that would be you, Lostlover and Tigerfan here. Snowden may be clearly less than he seemed to present himself but you think our people are better? you're so cynical about everything else virtually, but here trust a vast, deeply hidden surveillance state structure? More like there are no angels in this battle, and our guys are closer to the devils we despise than we'd care to admit.

There's no arguing with those who worship the holy State. They're part of a disease that needs to fade away --carefully -- if mankind is to survive.

 

[Kulindahr]

The effective oversight of these NSA/FBI programs is belied by Maine Senator Susan Collins, who, if anyone was, was entitled to be "read in:"



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ranking-sen-says-she-was-never-briefed-on

I have read the Geek's Guide. The author draws distinctions without difference to the issue at hand. And if he knows so much why isn't he in jail?

Oh, but public officials can be in error or corrupt -- it's only the hidden, secret part of the government that is holy and righteous and pure.

 

[palbert]

The NSA has pulled a Surveillance Fact Sheet ("SFS") from its website in response to Senators' objections that the SFS inaccurately described collection efforts regarding "US persons" communications.

National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith B. Alexander acknowledged Tuesday that a fact sheet on the agency’s Web site inaccurately described the extent to which the communications of U.S. citizens are protected from the spy agency’s collection of e-mail and other material from technology companies.
....
“Given the intense interest from the media, the public, and Congress, we believe the precision of the source document (the statute) is the best possible representation of applicable authorities,” (NSA spokesperson) Emmel said in a prepared statement sent by e-mail to The Washington Post.
....
The fact sheet asserted broadly that the program “allows only the targeting . . . of communications of foreign persons who are located abroad.” In his reply letter, Alexander acknowledged that the law allows for “the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” That language leaves a fair amount of discretion to analysts to determine whether a person is overseas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e95d9e-ddda-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story.html

The Surveillance Fact Sheet also stated that Section 702 did not allow for the collection anywhere of communications of US persons. (Page 2 of SFS)

This indicates that at some level the NSA did not understand the limits (unclear as they are) of its mandate.

 

[palbert]

Let us not forget that many of us are viewing PRISM and related efforts in the light of history. NSA has never been remiss in its efforts to accumulate information on Americans.

Sister Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET are prime examples. These lead to the Church Committee and, ultimately, FISA. (Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Frank Church concluded that Project SHAMROCK was "probably the largest government interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken.")

It seems that NSA programs - and certainly program "creep" - are shielded from effective oversight or are unknown to those who should be informed.

Are elements of NSA's programs inimical to some "US persons?" Almost assuredly, but we know not how much.

 

[kallipolis]

Let us not forget that many of us are viewing PRISM and related efforts in the light of history. NSA has never been remiss in its efforts to accumulate information on Americans.

Sister Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET are prime examples. These lead to the Church Committee and, ultimately, FISA. (Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Frank Church concluded that Project SHAMROCK was "probably the largest government interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken.")

It seems that NSA programs - and certainly program "creep" - are shielded from effective oversight or are unknown to those who should be informed.

Are elements of NSA's programs inimical to some "US persons?" Almost assuredly, but we know not how much.

That much we know - it's what we don't know that should concern Americans. For sure there is much, much more that is concealed from Congressional oversight ...in the interests of national security - of course.

 

[Kulindahr]

The NSA has pulled a Surveillance Fact Sheet ("SFS") from its website in response to Senators' objections that the SFS inaccurately described collection efforts regarding "US persons" communications.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e95d9e-ddda-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story.html

The Surveillance Fact Sheet also stated that Section 702 did not allow for the collection anywhere of communications of US persons. (Page 2 of SFS)

This indicates that at some level the NSA did not understand the limits (unclear as they are) of its mandate.

And proves, contrary to those who worship government and holy and pure, that they have been willingly and knowingly lying to us.

 

[tigerfan482]

Let us not forget that many of us are viewing PRISM and related efforts in the light of history. NSA has never been remiss in its efforts to accumulate information on Americans.

Sister Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET are prime examples. These lead to the Church Committee and, ultimately, FISA. (Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Frank Church concluded that Project SHAMROCK was "probably the largest government interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken.")

It seems that NSA programs - and certainly program "creep" - are shielded from effective oversight or are unknown to those who should be informed.

Are elements of NSA's programs inimical to some "US persons?" Almost assuredly, but we know not how much.

See my post in the other thread for this one.

That much we know - it's what we don't know that should concern Americans. For sure there is much, much more that is concealed from Congressional oversight ...in the interests of national security - of course.

No. There is so much more concealed from you and you hate it. You hate the fact that you don't know everything the government is doing. There has been, at best, a muted response from Congress because they did know about the programs, they did authorize, then reauthorize them, and they do know how they operate and what they do. They have oversight and this is why you see nothing really happening.

And proves, contrary to those who worship government and holy and pure, that they have been willingly and knowingly lying to us.

Wel now let's get the actual fact sheets and letters out there before we start taking snippets from these sensationalist articles.

Original Fact Sheets
Letter to NSA from Senators Wyden and Udall
General Alexander's Response

So, without knowing exactly what was in the classified attachment, I could safely guess the second bullet point under the top portion for FAA 702 is what concerned the Senators. This is true under the FAA 702. What is not true is that NSA can't target Americans at all, which is what the Senators seemed to be concerned about. The NSA can target Americans with an appropriate warrant, but that does not fall under the authorities of FAA 702. As you can see from the letter, General Alexander acknowledged they could have made this clearer to those not familiar with FAA or FISA, so he broke down exactly what was meant by that second bullet point. It is clear from the bullet points General Alexander used in his letter, the NSA cannot target Americans (at least those that they are able to identify as Americans) or anyone in America under the FAA 702.

So your contention that the NSA explicitly lied, that the Senators accused them of specifically lying, and that the NSA then admitted to lying are just completely false.

 

[JayHawk]

He hasn't been to one.

That you make the claim he has is tragic.

Bullshit dude, if you think China and Russia are democracies then you're delusional.

 

[JayHawk]

There has been, at best, a muted response from Congress because they did know about the programs, they did authorize, then reauthorize them, and they do know how they operate and what they do. They have oversight and this is why you see nothing really happening.

THIS.... we have had hearings galore on the IRS and yet the NSA situation isn't getting the time of day from our government.... gee golly. So are you all from abroad and those of you in the US that give a shit--- are you going to push the [STRIKE]police[/STRIKE] government into the sea as Kulidhar recently applauded the Brazilian people for doing?

I'll wait.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullshit dude, if you think China and Russia are democracies then you're delusional.

So you're changing your claim -- that shows me you know you were wrong.

Hong Kong is not run by a strongman,and is not communist; Russia is not communist.

In fact Hong Kong may be closer to a real democracy than many states run by the GOP.