NSA Confirms It Has Been Searching US Citizens' Data Without a Warrant 274
Charliemopps writes: "According to Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 'There have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.' Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant, according to the NSA."
April Fools? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm guessing.... no.
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
A little depressing, but it's getting hard to tell.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, up to this story it was hard to tell. This one is so obviously true is breaks the pattern. How sad is that?
Re:April Fools? (Score:4, Interesting)
Slasdot's biggest april's fools joke this year: No april's fools jokes! All of the news is unbelievable!
Re: (Score:3)
I think they're trying really hard not to piss anyone off after the beta fiasco.
Well anyway, it sounds to me that the only solution to fix the letter agencies is to fire everyone, and not hire anyone that has any primary, secondary, or up to 4th degree connection to them for a period of no less than 10 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How about if we fire them and put them in jail, and just not hire any replacements, period.
The problem is, you need intelligence agencies. You need to protect yourself from enemies foreign and domestic. You need to be able to be able to spy on other governments to find out their ulterior motives, and you need to be able to conduct covert operations instead of engaging in full out wars. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's sure a lot better than what we had before the agencies existed. But they've expanded beyond their scope and purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute 100% bullshit. We're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Such a country would rather have freedom than safety. There is no such dichotomy, but if there were, I would choose freedom every single time.
And how is that price of freedom paid? I'll wait for your answer, which will most likely never come.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You think their replacements will be any different?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:April Fools? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well maybe if we arrested them then beat them and water boarded them repeatedly, maybe that might get the point across?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it's no wonder, when you look at American films and television. It's always some lone cop, on a vigilante mission to kill the bad guys, above the law. It's a fantasy that has been so ingrained in our culture at this point, that from when these guys are little kids to when they join the force they are already programmed to fail.
That actually works both ways. There is so much entertainment which involves terrorists and serial killers -- it's probably fair to say that the number of fictional serial killers exceeds reality by now. Which might cause the public, and possibly even some of the law enforcers who really should know better, to grossly overestimate the actual danger they're in from day to day. And overreact accordingly when something does happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait...
Shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's too far-fetched to be from The Onion, it must be a real headline. Because comedy is supposed to make sense.
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether they are joking or not, regardless of their claims, the activity of the NSA is a violation of the constitution. It matters not what the FISA court says or what they believe it should be. It is a civil rights violation and they have been breaking the law. Without a warrant any collection of data is a violation of the 4th amendment. The purpose behind the 4th amendment was to stop general warrants, of which, the NSA activities qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
But if a court says it is okay, then it must be okay. After all, men in black robes are smarter than the rest of us!
Re: (Score:3)
And plus, they were doing it to protect us from [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice]. Everything is ok so long as you are doing it to fight [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice], right?
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
And plus, they were doing it to protect us from [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice]. Everything is ok so long as you are doing it to fight [spooky voice]TEEERRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS[/spooky voice], right?
My only fear with regard to "terrorism" — excluding the conversion of my country into a totalitarian police/surveillance state (as I consider this to be a realization rather than a fear) — manifests itself along the lines of: "I hope that steroid-fueled, combat-ready, bored cop over there doesn't think up an excuse to harass/question/search/detain/arrest/chem-spray/electrocute/beat/pop me, as he's all jacked-up to 'fight terror,' and there aren't any terrorists around to be fought (but I am), and I'm nine times more likely to be killed by a cop than killed by one of the elusive boogeymen the government seems to want me to fear."
Executive branch (Score:2, Interesting)
And the NSA is under the Executive branch of the US Government - the President of the US.
Back in 2001 - 2008, there was a President that was grabbing more power away from Congress and from we the people under the reason of National Security and safety and 9-11.
Some of us had a problem with that. We were called "unAmerican", "Bipartisan" and "Liberal".
When we protested and said that, "Whoever is next in office will get those powers and they WILL expand on them - regardless of their party." we were accused
Re: (Score:2)
Good, you have accepted that. Now what, O citizen, are you going to do about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Citizen? I'm a consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
How about peer pressure? Assuming that they're not entirely brainwashed, many of the folks working at NSA are probably a lot like us. Some of them likely even frequent /. for reasons other than subverting the discussion or serving up fake versions of it to selected members.
Not cool, guys, decidedly uncool even. Surely you can find a job which doesn't involve trampling on the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
And while I discourage actual violence, I feel the need to point out that so do the gun-nuts and paranoid survivalists - b
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? We reinterpret the Constitution now to mean whatever we want it to mean. Can't let the founding fathers get in the way of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here they are trying to be transparent
No, they aren't. They only admit what gets revealed.
"Terrorist" is the new "witch." (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure where that leaves "communist."
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them were buried, burned or otherwise rendered non-corporeal by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, etc, etc, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where that leaves "communist."
With the hippies, in the commune.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot filesharers.. they tend to get lumped in together. Copyright infringement must be a gateway 'witch' or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedaphiles: looked down upon by terrorists, communists, witches, drug lords, and file sharers the world over.
wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
wtf is up with the auto-play read-out loud BS? It's like being waterboarded with "beta" feature. Make it stop.
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to April 1st. Your wish will be granted on April 2nd.
Worst. April. Fools. Joke. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Chatroulette "feature" on here one a few years back was worse.
Re: (Score:2)
NoScript is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a script. It's an audio tag
greasemonkey+ jquery -> $(function(){$('.audio').remove();})
Doesn't matter what it is - if Noscript is blocking scripts, then it doesn't play (I had to allow scripts on this site before I realized what people were talking about).
Free To Do What We Tell You (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So they just have to paint up to 6 people [wikipedia.org] with the brush of terrorist to get you, that is just collateral damage.. They are at war after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant, according to the NSA.
According to the NSA in this particular admission. Adding it all up you're a person of interest if you:
1. Are a foreign terrorist.
2. Are a foreigner at all (we're apparently recording every SMS everywhere, and who knows how many full calls).
3. Communicate with a foreign terrorist.
4. Probably anybody who communicates with #3, to who knows how many degrees of separation.
5. Administer a system that a potential foreign terrorist uses, or work for a company that administers such a system.
It isn't a stretch
Re: (Score:2)
Well that could nicely include the entire Reagan era Republican Party after North was caught selling weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they had blown up more than one hundred US Marines.
Also does funding the IRA fit the bill? There's a few in politics that were mixed up with that.
Funny how double standards go isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I'd be shocked if it didn't include 85% of the world's population. Ollie North is just a bonus...
Re: (Score:3)
> We have no representation in congress,
That is our own fault. As long as we continue treating candidates like items on a fast food menu, nothing will change. Voters need to get involved during the primaries, and select and support candidates who are not there to perpetuate the status quo. Business as usual is *all* you're going to get from seasoned, incumbent, and party-endorsed candidates, especially those on the national level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The system isn't going to change until the general populace starts seriously supporting 3rd parties. But with the media, money, and politicians in power being linked together like some kind of demented ouroboros, the chances of that happen are somewhere between nil and nonexistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Never mind the spirit and intent. They are violating the PLAIN PAINSTAKING WORDS of the Constitution! What we have is a system infested with maggots from top to bottom. These maggots either don't quite have the power (yet) or the inclination to actually change the Constitution, so they are cynically just altogether ignoring that piece of paper. The safeguards, such as the Supreme C
Re: (Score:2)
They are violating the PLAIN PAINSTAKING WORDS of the Constitution!
You seem to have missed that the Courts, SCOTUS especially, seem to now exist to tell the People that they cannot possibly understand the plain words of the Constitution, and that it often means the opposite of what a plain understanding of it would seem to mean.
Their ultimate argument, therefore, is that the People cannot understand the Constitution, and therefore and logically, could never have been competent to authorize a government und
belief? (Score:4, Funny)
'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because even the FISA court might balk at issuing a warrant for Dianne Feinstein's communications. You didn't really think that the NSA is not trawling through the communications of politicians, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it? If the person is is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, then the FISA court would rubber-stamp a warrant so quick it would make heads spin. So why not get the warrant?
Warrants require evidence. The NSA usually doesn't have any.
Constitutional crisis approaches... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3. Learn it, love it, live it.
Re: (Score:2)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
That makes things pretty clear.
Small World(s) Phenomena anyone ? (Score:3)
If you have communicated with someone "believed" to be a terrorist:
Say your friendly Kebab dealer at the corner where your phoned in and ordered 2x Lamacun 1x Doener Kebab,
perhaps his brother is an "orthodox" muslim (now it misses the bitter taste of calling extremist such) is believed to be a terrorist, so is his brother (blood is thicker ..) and so your are for (a day or two or a month, hey don't reason with a machine ..)
So questions to be asked:
a.) under which conditions is someone believed to be a terrorist
b.) how deep is the search depth
c.) what is ment with "communicated" .. "hey you dropped this 5$US bill ... Ohh thank you" this is "communicating"
- ebay buyer/seller
- same chatroom (e.g. IRC)
- same kebab dealer
Re: (Score:2)
So questions to be asked:
a.) under which conditions is someone believed to be a terrorist
Well, zero. NSA has been scanning UseNet since the 1980's, really any Internet traffic (I'm sure earlier than that). They don't read your "stuff", it's scanned for keywords, then routed as procedure requires. It used to be common knowledge, it's been forgotten as well as the Usenet -to all but a few of us. The word "Nuclear" has always been a keyword.
Re: (Score:2)
I just took a nuclear shit. It was the bomb.
(Am I doing it right?)
Re: (Score:2)
I just took a nuclear shit. It was the bomb.
(Am I doing it right?)
Used to be 3 Submarine cable gateways, two on the West coast and one on the East (New York), now there are a few more http://www.cablemap.info/ [cablemap.info] anything going those routes are sure to be monitored. Seeing as /. is accessed in Europe, yes it should catch some attention.
Satellite or radio communications I've no clue how that works out; but my Dads job in the Air Force up till 1970 was to support/monitor that traffic (Philippines, Africa, Azores, India, etc), and he never talked about his work.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah no... the NSA needs far far less evidence than that. Basically, if they want to listen to your phone calls, they just use their vast trove of meta data, their "3 steps" rule and you're linked. I'm fairly certain the president could be considered linked to terror... actually that'd be way too easy... but you get my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Small World Phenomena
Or, the Erdos Number. [wikipedia.org]
Now, let's say your kebab dealer tweets about a limed time deal on select types of kebabs to spread awareness on twitter using a local city hashtag. Everyone who searches the city's hashtag around the time it was posted has received a communication from a possible terrorist. Furthermore everyone working at Twitter now can be suspected.
If that wasn't bad enough, let's say the "orthodox Muslim" brother who is suspected of terrorist acts performs one thus: He tweets with the city hashta
Color me suprised (Score:2)
Like I didn't see this one coming. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone.
When you have the ability you use it, the more you use it the less defined the lines become.
" Basically, if you communicated with someone ..." (Score:4, Interesting)
"Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant"
Fair game. Really. And I speak here as the pacifist humanitarian that I am.
But how do you make distinction between a terrorist and a freedom figher whose people are trying to survive genonide under your friendly ("preferred") trading partners? Tibet (unique in every way; language, culture, ethnicity, script etc.)? Ukraine (unique and close to Europe)? Or perhaps just a member of some rural middle-eastern belief system from the 6th century?
What value system are you basing this "terrorist" label upon? Believing in freedom? Self-determination? Or something else? Saying unpleasant things about the militaristic occupying nation? (you'd disappear in China)
It's the 21st century so please make up your mind and finally make more than a pretend stand on this issue: who are the terrorists (who you may actually trade with) and who are the actual victims of terrorism (often state-sponsored)?
The whole democratic majority of the world (as long as it exists) has a last chance to decide what they consider acceptable, at a state level. Are your real opponents mere misguided goat herders or something state-sponsored and fundamentally game-changing?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. You're not understand what they are doing. They don't care about terrorists. They think they have the right to go through all of our data, all of the time. The constitution and laws of this country are simply another obstacle in their way. They want to read your mail? Record your calls? They look at your metadata, find a link to something... Terrorists, drugs, whatever... viola, you're a target.
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you make distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter
Both 'terrorists' - so all of your communications are subject to search and seizure if you "communicate" within 2-degrees of separation with any of them.
Heck, I've seriously begun to wonder if the Nigerian spammers aren't actually State-sponsored, to establish a 2-degree network of "communications" regarding "financing" that spans every Internet user. After all, the NSA cannot be expected to individually analyze every case, so they ha
So that would include President Obama, right? (Score:2)
After all, he was palling around with a known terrorist.
In fact, given the 6 degrees of separation factor, almost *every* American has an association with a terrorist, and even if not, the definition of terrorist can be widely expanded to make sure that you're an associate of a terrorist. Think about how many names are on that no-fly list...
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, my father-in-law worked with Elizabeth Dole on transportation issues. Elizabeth Dole doubtless was connected with Reagan, and Reagan likely with Oliver North, who dealt directly with terrorists. That's five jumps, and that's only what I know about.
Re:OK, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... what is their definition of a terrorist?
If you are being suspected that makes you a terrorist. With this definition everything works out.
Re:OK, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
DEFINITION (Score:5, Insightful)
A member of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement, or anyone who objects to the corruption, wealth funneling, war mongering imperialism, or the militarization of the police.
In otherwords, "me"...
(and "you")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
The GP is not calling them terrorists. He is saying that the current "authorities" would label them as terrorists if they tried something like that today and use that as an excuse to vanquish them. Nobody thinks they they are actually like Bin Laden and his evil (well, deceived) minions.
And I find it incredibly naive if you think that someone trying to start a revolution in the USA today would be labelled as anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article "Ugly to compare tea party with terrorists"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINIO... [cnn.com]
The opening paragraph of the article
The cycle of incitement continued this week as Democrats frustrated with the debt-ceiling deal equated the tea party with terrorists, just weeks before the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
But that's from one of those whacko conservative blogs.
Oh, wait. It's from CNN.
Sadly all these people are hoping for in their "revolution" is the enforcement of the existing Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all a question of perspective.
I would say it is a question of territory: it is not the same thing to blow up an invader in your own country, and or in the invader's country.
It is also a question of nationality: it is not the same thing to blow up an invader and to blow your fellow nationals
Re: (Score:3)
Terrorists are known to breathe air. Therefore, anyone who breathes air is a potential terrorist and needs to be under surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a bright side to eating matzoh and not bread on Passover! I'm not a suspect for a eight days!
Re: (Score:2)
My guess? Anyone who "communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist." Add your six degrees of separation, and presto, that's everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New here, you must be. Ponies, OMG, you loved would have.
Re: (Score:3)
4/1. Pray that it's gone on 4/2.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's hilarious, because it's someone reading in a robot voice, not a robot voice. I am gleeful imagining the staff recording every single submission for a dopey 401 joke.
Somebody submit a manifesto, or something similarly huge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legal searches (Score:5, Insightful)
Where in that sentence do you think that the searches had been approved by FISA?
I think you need a lesson in reading comprehension, it claims the process used in the search had been approved by FISA, not these specific searches, and that is a very different thing.
The usual smokescreen doubletalk of course, but no where do they claim the search targets had been approved.
So, why are you trusting people who have got no approval, let alone specific approval?
Ah, thats right - you only believe in your rights not generic rights - and they haven't come for you yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.
Yeah, the masters of rubberstamping. Also, note how most things they approve of are unacceptably broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to collect the data *at all*.
You don't trust the people you gave trust to?
Never, at any point, have I ever gave them my trust.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, I've never looked at it that way. How very insightful. The people in power don't think their abuses of power are wrong, or even abuses of power? What a shocking revelation! I'm going to view the NSA in a whole new light, and it's all thanks to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is having it both ways for the NSA. They have a very elastic use of English, i.e., they say data is not collected when it is gathered, only when it is queried. No you are saying that once its collected, they don't need a warrant because they already got it.
Now -- I think they should have a warrant to collect information (and by collect, I mean that in the normal human sense of the word, not the DC sense). But that's not how things are being applied right now, and your interpretation if it gain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a pity, then, that we live in a society that values everyone's opinions.
OK, kill me, but I don't think that's a good thing. I'm uneducated on several major topics that appear in the newspapers on a daily basis. Example - Syrian Civil War (well, relatively under-informed). My opinion on that is worth less to society then someone who is much more familiar with the situation.
Conversely, I'm an amateur astronomer. Put me in a room with an astrologer and I'll rip him/her to shreds.
I think peoples' options matter, but not equally. An idiot (including myself) with no kno
Re: (Score:2)
And if we actually knew what they were doing instead of having to guess, we'd probably agree.
Nope. They simply should not be collecting the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not merely a member - he's the one in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it? I fail to see the connection - Eich did not publicly climb the soapbox and make ridiculous statements. He keeps his bigotry private.
Take a look at the world around you (Score:2)
You don't get to keep the old one.
If you are "lucky" you get a Napoleon, less lucky and you get a Stalin - Washington got in because there was no need for a sea of blood to force the previous rulers to let go so is not an option no matter how lucky you are.