Secret Rules Make It Pretty Easy For the FBI To Spy On Journalists (theintercept.com) 189
schwit1 shares with us a report on a 11-part series led by The Intercept reporter Cora Currier: Secret FBI rules allow agents to obtain journalists' phone records with approval from two internal officials -- far less oversight than under normal judicial procedures. The classified rules dating from 2013, govern the FBI's use of national security letters, which allow the bureau to obtain information about journalists' calls without going to a judge or informing the news organization being targeted. They have previously been released only in heavily redacted form. Media advocates said the documents show that the FBI imposes few constraints on itself when it bypasses the requirement to go to court and obtain subpoenas or search warrants before accessing journalists' information. The rules stipulate that obtaining a journalist's records with a national security letter requires the signoff of the FBI's general counsel and the executive assistant director of the bureau's National Security Branch, in addition to the regular chain of approval. Generally speaking, there are a variety of FBI officials, including the agents in charge of field offices, who can sign off that an NSL is "relevant" to a national security investigation. There is an extra step under the rules if the NSL targets a journalist in order "to identify confidential news media sources." In that case, the general counsel and the executive assistant director must first consult with the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's National Security Division. But if the NSL is trying to identify a leaker by targeting the records of the potential source, and not the journalist, the Justice Department doesn't need to be involved. The guidelines also specify that the extra oversight layers do not apply if the journalist is believed to be a spy or is part of a news organization "associated with a foreign intelligence service" or "otherwise acting on behalf of a foreign power." Unless, again, the purpose is to identify a leak, in which case the general counsel and executive assistant director must approve the request.
The Whole Game Is Rigged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet they force us to play.
Re:The Whole Game Is Rigged. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet they force us to play.
Even more interesting is how those of us that recognize this and learn how to play by the rules of said game to our advantage are demonized in a true hello pot meet kettle fashion. Who exactly do they think we learned this from? It's the Lucifer Effect [youtube.com]. FWIW - I won't compromise my morals and ethics but I will use the same tactics as those that those do not have morals and ethics use, I just use them in a different way strategically. Want to fix the problem? Fix the game. The game is creating bad people.
secret rules (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2013... thx obama
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, not meant as troll bait, just kinda tired of all the hate both ways.
Context matters, except to #PresidentTweety (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality is rather more complicated than your feeble attempt at a joke might suggest. Not really blaming you. I wanted to think of some humorous aspect of the entire situation and came up drier than your attempted witticism.
President Obama inherited a mess. The roots of the problem go back way before 2013, 2008, or even 2000. The entire governmental system has become hopelessly distorted by partisan politics. The founders hated political parties and understood the risks of putting party ahead of country. They probably would have outlawed political parties if they could have figured out any way to prevent the leopard from changing its spots, but at least they tried to isolate the sickness and keep it out of the judicial branch. Most prominently, that's why federal judges were appointed for life.
A lot of people would point at Bush v Gore as the breaking point, but I actually think that was just the harvest. The seeds were planted decades before. Maybe Ike deserves the negative credit for trying to defuse two of his political adversaries by putting them on the Court? Or FDR for his attempts to pack the Court, though at least he failed in his bum's rush approach and had to wait for time to do its little ravaging act? Or maybe we should just jump all the way back to Marbury v Madison and President John Adams?
Anyway, at this point I think whatever Obama did badly, #PresidentTweety is about to do worse.
Nobody expects the Email Inquisition.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting take on it, but if you want to lay blame for partisanship, then it belongs at the feet of Hamilton first and foremost.
A couple of additional lines added to the Constitution when it was written, something along the lines of "No consecutive terms except for president/vice president" and "all bills must be hand authored by a single lawmaker" would have gone far to limit the BS currently in vogue.
Re: (Score:2)
Good suggestions and I want to agree with you, but I think that whatever rules you have, there are some people who value "winning" above everything. You need to assume that those people will cheat and twist the rules, and no matter how you change the rules, they will just look for new ways to cheat.
Maybe the biggest problem in today's America is that all the rules are being written by professional politicians who have become highly responsive to bribes from people of that sort? With #PresidentTweety they've
Re: (Score:2)
Unclear to me where you are going, but arbitrary word limits do not seem to be the solution to any problem I can understand. If your word limits on laws force the laws to be unclear or leave things unspecified, then the decisions will be made elsewhere. Perhaps within the bureaucracy or by the courts, but you can't just say shorter is better.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Go study some information theory. Reality is not like that.
You cannot pretend the complexity does not exist. If you force the legislature to ignore the complexities (by compressing their legislation), then the complexities will still exist and will be resolved somewhere else. If you prevent the bureaucracy (as part of the executive branch) from addressing the complexities (by compressing their regulations), then the complexities will still exist and will be resolved somewhere else. If you prevent the ju
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly dismissed your comments as light scanning, which was clearly justified by your closing diss of Hillary. Not saying that I like her, but I'm already pretty certain that you can't convince me she was such an exceptionally bad candidate and I had no problem voting for her, even if I would have preferred a less conservative option. If you actually think you have some NEW reason to hate her that doesn't go back to fake news or misogyny, go ahead.
As for the rest of it... Well, you obviously paid even less
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "pointless and closed" were you unable to understand.
Re: Public masturbation of 679165 (Score:2)
Z^1
Re:secret rules (Score:4, Interesting)
Too soon.
Everybody still remembers the 'free press' being owned by the Clinton campaign. Try again in four years, most Americans have poor memories, CNN, NYT etc might have a tiny shred of credibility back by then.
Then again, that would require they tone down the propaganda for a period, so they might not.
Re: (Score:3)
You confuse corporate content, mostly bought and paid for, with untethered journalism. Most commercial media sway to the side that pays for them, just like the US Congress and Executive Branches.
There are those journalists, not lackeys of advertisers, that do real work dealing with real facts, and not that alt-facts poo. Glenn Greenwald comes to mind, although I wonder if some of his reporting is backlash spite for Snowden.
Clinton helped a perfect storm of idiots occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Av. We will not for
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
More government is not the solution for too much government. There are, in fact, more than two sides to any story.
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing "functioning government" and "broken government". Adding more government to a broken one can indeed help.
Re: (Score:2)
Your proposed solution for a media with it's nose up the governments butt is 'more government'?
Re: (Score:1)
Tell me; how come this site has suddenly been overrun by Trump adepts in the last half-ish year? It never was this bad. Did you simply chase anyone else off? Is it one of those white supremacist led invasions?
Re: (Score:3)
Nice, keep it up. _Blatant_ fixing with smarmy attitude had everything to do with the results. Pretending they aren't now in a credibility crisis isn't going to do them any good. That would have been the strategy had Clinton won...now they don't have one.
I say that having voted for Johnson.
Next cycle, CNN should get no presidential debates. They can't be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I say, no strategy. Just close your eyes and pretend.
Re:secret rules (Score:5, Informative)
You vastly over-estimate Clinton's influence and power. It just so happened that her opponent was a lying asshole and the press noticed. His press officers going on rants about the media not accepting his alternate facts is not because the media is corrupt and controlled by his opponents, it's because the media makes some minimal effort to print the truth.
That the media screws up sometimes is irrelevant, it doesn't mean you can just tell them any old bullshit and expect it to be accepted as equal to reality.
Re: (Score:3)
You vastly over-estimate Clinton's influence and power.
The press was by and large in the tank for Clinton. Whether it was newspaper owners holding fundraisers for her (Washington Post [twitter.com]), or sending her releases of stories about her in advance for approval (Politico/New York Times [dailycaller.com]), or sending her debate questions (CNN [nypost.com]), the press in this country has demonstrated that they are not trustworthy to deliver unbiased news. These are only a few examples I can think off the top of my head. I'm sure the same shenanigans would have gone on even if Trump wasn't the GOP nom
Re: (Score:2)
You get it. Fox IS just like CNN, the NYT, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, Wash Post, Mcclatchy papers etc etc. Open propaganda outlets with obvious and notorious bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody but right wing partisans believed Fox was anything but propaganda. Fox didn't even bother hiding their nature. Further they were behind the standard RNC message. This election didn't go their way either.
Some people (admittedly mostly morons) still believed the NY Times etc was straight news, until this election cycle. At this point if anyone still believes it, they are as far gone as any 'only Fox news' watcher. The MSM didn't even bother hiding their nature this cycle. Being convinced the bitch w
Re: (Score:2)
I do not like Trump, but the press repeatedly said things along the lines of, "Anything is acceptable in order to defeat Donald Trump," and then was surprised when large swathes of the U.S. voters did not believe anything they said.
Re: secret rules (Score:1)
had Clinton won the presidency can anyone say with a straight face that the media would be as critical with her as they are with Trump?
They wouldn't need to be. She had her faults but she's not a giant orange piece of excrement like Trump. I like to judge presidential candidates by imagining what they would do if they had absolute power. Now, you tell me with a straight face that Trump wouldn't go full tyrannosaurus rex. All the other candidates, I think, would be quite restrained and actually work for a better America. Trump, however, would become the next Joseph Stalin, minus the socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
So, can't exactly blame on Obama. On the other hand, this document was leaked under the Obama administration which could have been intentional. Bare in mind, the FBI's mandate and policies are governed by not just the President but Congress as well (if not more so).
Re: (Score:2)
2013... thx obama
Of course, Trump will immediately issue a presidential decree to fix that, right?*
(*don't tell anybody, but that was sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
I am somewhat surprised we haven't seen a resurgence of Occupy yet, myabe the weather is still too cold so maybe they are waiting until things thaw out some.
Re: (Score:3)
In a healthy democracy there shouldn't be such a thing as "secret rules".
Now that USA has disqualified itself as the world's custodian of democracy and freedom, is there any other country that wants to volunteer for this job?
Re: (Score:2)
In a healthy democracy there shouldn't be such a thing as "secret rules".
This. A thousand times this. If the voters don't know what's going on how are we supposed to make reasonable and informed decisions? A vote from an uninformed electorate is like participating in a kayak race without a kayak. You're just pretending to go through the motions.
The rules aren't what makes it easy (Score:2, Insightful)
The rules aren't what makes it easy; the rules are used to justify it. The fact that "call records" are a thing that someone else stores for you, is what makes it easy.
A modernized phone system would lack the capacity for anyone to be able to do this, regardless of any rules.
Re: The rules aren't what makes it easy (Score:2)
Remember: The FBI is a *police* force. (Score:1)
If you're not a cop, you have no rights.
Secret Moon Base (Score:5, Funny)
Because we all know that the Obama administration was The Most Transparent and Most Open and Most All Good Things ever, ever in history, ever. And that Hillary Clinton was a big fan and was going to continue his policies. Except for Trump's secret time travel leverage. Evil Trump!
Re: (Score:2)
Trump used the time machine hidden on Putin's secret moon base to go back in time and convince Obama to empower the FBI with this power. Evil Trump, again!
Never happened. The time machine got hacked before it could ever do this and as a result the Russian hackers erased that timeline.
Important, but not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
NSL's have more fuckery involved than just journalists. This isn't new, and many have been speaking up for a long time. Everyone needs to respect the bill of rights and constitution. I know some here enjoy bashing the second as well as being advocates of the 4th, but all need to be respected regardless of which American football team you pull for. NSL's should be illegal. Put your Obama and Trump bashing aside and unite for a common goal.
It is OK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and with rules like this there never will be any "real journalists" again.
Re: (Score:2)
Who counts as a journalist? (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly to they decide what news organizations are considered...well, news organizations, and by extension which people are considered journalists? Because if they set the bar low enough, then this is basically everyone. For example, by commenting on /. (a site that claims to provide news), am I contributing to the reporting of the news and therefore considered a journalist? What about someone with a blog, in which they report news about their own life or a topic of interest? For that matter, if facebook is a news site...
The potential for overreach seems laughably high with this policy, even by US domestic spying standards.
Re: (Score:2)
The color of law way around that is to start to define what a "profession" is and who a real journalist is or what a news organization is.
Cant pay for accreditation for all staff and then get new documents for the news organization, no protection.
It would be back to the days of needing the correct local police media id in every city, town, state, parish every year.
Can someone clarify "secret rules" for me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
Because the way I see this, when you have ad hoc "secret rules" applied by justice or intelligence bodies, that is the definition of abuse of power (or spying, which is basically "abuse of power" for non-judicial purposes). One thing is to know there are gag orders put in place to companies - those gags were approved publicly, so the people basically "know companies might or might not be screwing with your privacy rights", but such a thing as "secret rules" would turn that to "every government executive body or law enforcement might or might not be screwing with your _rights_" (as in "all rights", that's how broad it becomes).
The existence of such rules mean, in essence, there can be rules like, for instance "allowing your or your entire family's execution because you ate a pretzel this morning without giving tip and a police officer didn't like it"; or milder, yet stupider things like "ban you from Netflix because you watch too much foreign movies". It gets that stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, it's stupid, but it's, sadly, remarkably easy to understand.
One of the problems is called "Regulatory law" (as opposed to legislative law).
Unfortunately, Congress often passes laws where it doesn't know what it's doing, so it drafts the law vaguely and defers the exact rule making to sub agencies.
Thus, in crap like the Patriot Act, you have statements like "cannot intentionally capture data from US citizens", and the NSA taking their scumbag lawyers and writing briefs on exactly what THEY THINK tha
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually a very educational explanation to my (sorta rhetorical) question, thanks!
And sadly, I don't believe you're exaggerating either, but in contrast I do believe most people ARE aware of practices like this. I just think current society likes teeny tiny doses of 1984-esque Big Brother where law doesn't really apply, and that's why such "ruling" must be kept under wraps - too much "one-man law" and people revolt.
Re: (Score:3)
But the raw material had to get to the DEA, FBI and other agencies. The GCHQ could help too, Project MINARET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
In the 1970's anti-war and civil rights groups started to notice the COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] collection methods.
Factions got created in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements.
Finally internal FBI documents made it out the wider p
Re: (Score:2)
Very thorough timeline, and a tormenting conclusion.
But as a common citizen, I try not to dwell too much ins conspiracy theories - my mind, by my own decision (I believe) has to focus on the small tasks and interactions that actually affect and can be affected by me, and my mind has to take (false?) comfort there's someone else "above" me, directing, ruling my country in ways that cannot be that bad, as in effect I live in a world I somewhat consider safe.
Nevertheless, when I tackle this "basic rights and b
Re: (Score:2)
If you did not or are not working for the US gov/mil or as a US contractor or mercenary and are not talking to the media a person is not that interesting.
If your not a member of the press looking for gov/mil contacts or showing former gov/mil workers documents that are still secret via whistleblowers.
Most of the main US systems are looking for financial, political, legal, technical terms or terms that should not be out in public.
Re: (Score:3)
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
The other question is "why does the press not care until a Republican gets in the White House?" We all know the answer, of course.
Related: note that a Navy SEAL died in combat, and that's suddenly front page news again.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't answer questions with questions. Leave that to Trump, Hillary and whatever candidates want to steer public opinion in a structuraly charismatic debate that wants to sway votes sans logic in the mix.
As for why does the press does what it does when democrats lose the upper hand - and in your own question for question logic - why does social media care to share fake news and disproportionate assertions about immigrants or misinformation about global warming? Because it's just that easy to turn a stup
Re: (Score:2)
Congress for years has been delegating authority to agencies to make their own rules.
It has been argued that this is a violation of the US constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The higher courts also defer to the agencies to interpret their own rules and don't review them for constitutionality.
That's apparently known as the Chevron doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Benjamin Ginsberg wrote a book about some of that stuff.
What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run th
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice info, many thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
Because the way I see this, when you have ad hoc "secret rules" applied by justice or intelligence bodies, that is the definition of abuse of power (or spying, which is basically "abuse of power" for non-judicial purposes). One thing is to know there are gag orders put in place to companies - those gags were approved publicly, so the people basically "know companies might or might not be screwing with your privacy rights", but such a thing as "secret rules" would turn that to "every government executive body or law enforcement might or might not be screwing with your _rights_" (as in "all rights", that's how broad it becomes).
The existence of such rules mean, in essence, there can be rules like, for instance "allowing your or your entire family's execution because you ate a pretzel this morning without giving tip and a police officer didn't like it"; or milder, yet stupider things like "ban you from Netflix because you watch too much foreign movies". It gets that stupid.
I don't know how they justify it in their heads but the way they keep the charade up is by making it so that no one has legal standing to sue. Then those pesky judges in the supreme court don't have to spend a few minutes thinking about the constitutionality of these things. No suit? No hearing, no ban on NSLs. Its the perfect plan and the judges that sit on the FISA court let it go because they're hoping the cooperation will allow them to attain that high seat on the Supreme Court!
Re: (Score:2)
That came out a bit wrong. I was initially thinking of another concept, different from abuse of power so spying ended up sounding wrong - it is not DIRECTLY related to abuse power indeed, and spying has nothing to do with theoretical, constitutional law/justice. Spying effectively is though an abuse of power by intelligence agencies' officers (even when they try to dissociate for safeguard), and such agencies were initially based and created as law enforcement, even though they actually don't enforce anyone
Re: (Score:2)
They really should (trump national security). But gvnm't plays the catch-22 game rather easily with the "your freedom is messing with my freedom" argument. They basically turn "national security" into ALL 'MURICAN RIGHTS, like sand in the eyes of those that can't grasp 99% of the times, only one side's rights are actually being taken away.
Thank you, Trump! (Score:3)
Well, thank you, Donald J. Trump!!! Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows. Since he seems to hate everything Obama did and wants to rip it out and replace it. Maybe he'll get rid of this too.
(I know, I know. I'm laughing too).
Re: (Score:2)
But, at least, now we know about this... Because, as I don't mind reminding yet again, dissent is patriotic once more...
Had it become sexist instead last November, things would've remained as they were for 8 more more years...
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever Trump may do, Obama's conduct needed to be punished at the polls; no party should get away with this kind of bullshit and then get reelected.
And it wasn't just this where Obama failed, it was also his massive crony capitalism, his sabotage of race relations, his drone killings, and his war mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I'm wrong, but after his ridiculous artificial emergency this week it's on the cards that his next one to save America's florists and bakers from gays is not far off.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never "cheered" Trump.
Well, I'm a citizen now. But until 1990, homosexuality was grounds for exclusion, and not being able to enter the US because a president screwed up an EO is hardly anything unusual either. Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage, until it was politically expedient to say something different; they are not trustworthy on gay rights.
As for direct threats, I consider vi
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't see his tweets in November about removing citizenship?
He's hit the Muslims, he's hit the greens, he's going to work his way down his enemies list and you are going to find that there are a lot of people on it.
Take a look at some of the people close to Trump starting with Bannon. They are not "Jesus types" - they are the merchants in the temple at best and more like the violent activists you mentioned. They w
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently have little idea of what it means to actually live under an oppressive or homophobic regime.
Yes, that's pretty much the attitude of progressives these days: if you don't get your political
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of do but not at the receiving end. Where I lived in the 1980s gays were being jailed for being gay and their bashings were condoned by the obviously corrupt police (the commissioner later did jail time) if it stopped short of murder. I did some work at a radio station where there were some gay and lesbian programs broadcast and spent a lot of time with the presenters so heard a few things, but
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not "building a strawman". Actually, I just despise you.
Re: (Score:2)
UK police force smacked down on the issue (Score:3)
A force that used its powers to target journalists' phones has been told off by the UK regulator on the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
Secret rules? (Score:2)
"Secret Rules Make It Pretty Easy For the FBI To Spy On Journalists"
If the rules are "secret", there are no rules.
Headline should be: "FBI Now Able To Do Whatever The Fuck They Want In Order To Spy On Journalists"
Why the eff are "Journalist" a protected class? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we not ALL citizens entitled to the same constitutional protections of our inalienable rights? Why the heck is it special for journalists and why are we not all equal under the law?
Re: (Score:2)
The primary role of a good pastor isn't to question the the state or powerful corporate interests, as opposed to, say, journalists.
Thank you, Mr. President (Score:2)
Thank you, Mr. President, for restoring civil liberties, privacy, and the rule of law, like you promised! It's why we voted for you!
And we will remain as faithful to your party as you have been to us, the people!
Amerika (Score:2)
Home of secret law, land of safe cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
Home of secret law, land of safe cowards.
Home of the Fee, Land of the Knave.
All the more reason to use burner phones and (Score:2)
encrypted drop boxes for setting up contacts with sources...
really weird when you have to use spycraft to protect your sources from your own government agencies...
Counter productive to the FBI (Score:2)
Re:The classified rules dating from 2013 (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's entirely the point, and why you should be against this kind of thing regardless if you're on the left or right. You can't guarantee who comes next isn't someone you won't want to trust with that kind of unchecked and intrusive ability to spy on us all.
Re: (Score:2)
Burner phones. Duh.
It's long past the point where 'they' can ever be trusted. Journalists anywhere near controversy use burners, as they should.
BTW Thanks Ed, I was getting sick of being called paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Voice prints will cover for that. Also tracking of all US gov workers, contractors work and home cell phones and their intention with any US journalists.
Any voice talks, meetings with a US journalist known to publish new material about the intelligence community will be under constant watch.
An older program called First Fruits would track all US reporters and journalists for any new mention of any NSA work.
If a story was been created or researched online u
Re: (Score:2)
How much voice printing do you think they can do with phone quality sound?
They would have to install a local app to print the local higher quality sound samples and get you to repeat test phrases. Even then false positives would be huge problem for them. To say nothing of the increased odds of being caught out, having so many apps on so many phones.
Which is a good argument for using feature phones as burners and changing them more often than underwear.
Fundamentally, secrets are better kept offline th
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
"The aircraft are able to identify suspects using 'voice-prints' "
e.g. telephone traffic today can be matched to any voice on a TV interview many years ago.
Quality is never an issue, just that the voice was captured and is in use again.
The raw collection cost is low given well understood cell phone encryption.
Speech Recognition is NSA’s B
Re: (Score:2)
The UK was not going to have a Room 641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] or Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]–05
Any telco worker could have gone to the press about strange hardware. Vetted UK telco staff with deep links back to their own nations, embassies, faiths, cults, press/police contacts would ha
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to reply to you again, but phone quality sound is now extremely high quality compared with the stuff that was being analysed a couple of decades back when the field was relatively new.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that it's a bad idea to set up a drug deal by phone have your main phone, with an account in your own name, turned on and in your pocket at the same time as you are standing alone in the middle of a large otherwise deserted park using that "burner" phone.
The location records from the phone in his name matched the "burner" with no other people around to provide any doubt.
Re: (Score:1)
That's just it. Most people aren't against 'this kind of thing'. Not the ones who vote anyway. Over 98% give their full consent every two years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than a bit of role reversal the parties have not changed at all. And there is no hope as long as they continue to be rewarded with votes. Any and all change will have to come from the voters.
Re: (Score:2)
The press in general pretty much abdicated it's job for the past 8 years.
8 years? Where were they when Bush and his flunkies were going around uttering the words Iraq and terrorism in the same sentence?
The point really is the press is part of the problem BECAUSE they've picked sides.
If the problem was really they have picked sides it would still leave a halfway useful result.
My personal view the time machine thing in Tomorrowland is a fitting analogy of the press. Not only are they stupid, lazy and bias they persistently deliberately seek to amplify negative energy, stoke controversy and fear for no reason other than self-enrichment. They have essentially
Re: (Score:1)
So who do we blame?
The voters, of course. They're letting, no, demanding this and more.
Re: (Score:2)
You can blame "voters" all you want, but in the interest of being fair about this, consider exactly how much effort has gone into keeping
Re: (Score:1)
They know what's going on. And those who vote democrat or republican want more.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama firmly promised to stand up to this, and obviously he lied. Hillary must have been in on it as well.
And the voters did the right thing and kicked these jerks out of office.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
".. involved the accumulation of all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the United States."
".. Intercepted messages were disseminated to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), and the Department of Defense"
Operation CHAOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
yes.... let the hate flow though you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because he's cutting their budget (Score:2)
It's his fault because as we know, Trump doesn't exactly like the NSA, CIA and FBI - he's said he plans to cut their budget and their power - they've lent credence The Onion type stories about him, he's called their competence into question.
Because Trump doesn't like them and intends to cut their budget, they'll have less ability to engage in mass surveillance. Therefore - oh sorry, gotta run, but I'm sure you can see where this is going, how it's Trump's fault. Obama wouldn't have allowed his agencies t
Re: (Score:2)
Keep it up, nominate a full tilt red in 4 years. Guarantee another 1461.