Seems like everything Obama does is s scandal so hard to spot a real one! Did you see he had a Marine hold an umbrella for him?! The nerve!

The NSA approves this message!

Brought to you by the Military Industrial Complex where we pride ourselves on being a kinder gentler Big Brother!

post a copy of said log. Conjecture is bad so this information you are going to provide will clear up a lot of this fog. How long is such information kept?
What we saw in the 2008 Fisa amendments was that Bush's overreach was legalized retroactively. Could we possibly see this happen again. For example, could something innocuous now perhaps throw up red flags 4 years from now and if so, could that person be wiretapped?

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente said that the FBI could listen to phone calls between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his wife. "Welcome to America," he said. "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3229478

"Not according to Tim Clemente.

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente said that the FBI could listen to phone calls between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his wife. "Welcome to America," he said. "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

...nothing to do with that NSA surveillance. From the link you provided:

It had to have been stored prior in a blanket fashion.

Which makes you wonder, when you discuss PRISM specifically that is one program. There may be other programs we do not yet know about that does other things, like collect digital content data on all cell calls. It makes sense that an NSA program is not of use for the FBI, that they have their own interfaces for domestic vs foreign data.

doesn't necessarily contradict what we have been told about logs. Tsarnaev arrived here with a warning from Russia. It could be that it was that tip that prompted them to review the logs and then wiretap him and his calls to wifey. Perhaps the calls that they tapped into never provided anything that was "imminent threat" enough to act on. Perhaps Clemente is referring to the logs themselves when he says "all that stuff is being captured..."

Then that would truly be a pure failure of intelligence.

We'd been warned he was a terrorist. Just too bad they didn't get something before he killed and maimed.

This program doesn't work. It never has. It never will. THis will not make you safer, it will not make you more secure, but it will separate you from your tax dollars. Remember that when they tell you there is no money for Social Security or Medicare...

They had the 911 hijackers in their sights at least 2 months prior to the attacks and Bush got a briefing memo 36 days before 9/11/01 entitled:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

All the surveillance in the world will not make us safer if they can't or don't act on that data.

stopped some major terrorism. the plain truth is that if Obama had come in and, with or without the congress, just ended the surveillance and then we got hit, there is NO QUESTION but that he would have been a one-termer, and that we would be under much more surveillance with a repugnant at the helm, we would be torturing as before, and some of the modifications that Obama put in place which included more warrants and oversight would not be there now either. It's naive to think that Obama could have turned the whole thing around so fast, it's just not political reality. I believe Obama is more like us than bush ever was, i think he would prefer to end alot of this stuff, but it's a minefield and it's not gonna happen overnight. That's what so enraging about all this over-reaction to terrorism in the first place-we all knew that it would become entrenched and that it would be hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

that president hasnt stopped those surveillance methods? "the plain truth is that if Obama had come in and, with or without the congress, just ended the surveillance and then we got hit, there is NO QUESTION but that he would have been a one-termer,"

I am confused. Did Pres Obama continue the illegal surveillances of the Bush admin?

The money spent on this program could be put to use actually attempting to stop terrorism, but that is not profitable so it will not happen. I notice it didn't stop the bombing in Boston.. and those guys were on the NSA's radar.

Authoritarianism and violence are not going to stop terrorism. They are the cause..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

while doing so, think for a moment what that word means.

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

... owning and using a communication device is UNREASONABLE.

Does that help you comprehend?

a call log is like a phone bill. It shows numbers that connect with numbers in calls, and the duration of the connections. You are opposed to spying on ALL. Who should be spied on, then?

I'm done with your pitiful game.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If they are only keeping phone logs then why keep it secret? Why are they so upset when it was revealed that they were only keeping phone logs?

I am disappointed that some here want to quickly end the conversation. Now that the cat is out of the bag, let's have the discussion. Pres Obama thinks we should have the conversation.

lets have the conversation. But lets point out when people are consistently mis-characterizing the whole thing by just extrapolating into any awful direction they choose, without basing it on known facts. Call logs are similar to surveillance video in a store. We all come and go and people could watch what we buy, compare it to times on the register to find out just who we are, where we live, where we do our banking, what we've bought it the past, etc..but instead it just sits there as unwatched raw footage until the police seek warrants for a particular part of the footage to help convict a criminal or to catch him in the first place. We've all seen the footage of the guy buying plastic bags, gloves, a shovel, etc..right after his wife goes missing, or whatever. The call LOGS sit there until a number connects with a number of a known suspicious person, if warranted, FUTURE calls could be tapped.

so the answer is to just assume that there are no knowable facts, assume the worst of everything and fly into a panic?

made. If that's true, then there was a terrible over reaction. It's my opinion from what I have read, is that the NSA and it's private sub-contractors are in fact recording phone conversations, emails, and probably more. Now they might not be "reading" them, but I believe they are being stored for future use. And maybe they will ask for a warrant before they read them. Not that the FISA courts ever deny the NSA what they want. I believe they are doing this because they can. They use the same rationalization that you are using to justify phone logs. They are only recording not listening or reading.

When we see smoke we shouldnt panic, but we sure as hell should go looking for the source of the smoke.

specifies. It also specifically says, "Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communications, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 25100 (8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."

So unless the companies deliberately overstepped the instructions of the warrant, they aren't turning over any recordings of any conversations. Such recordings would be "the substantive content" of such a conversation.

Read the warrant, since that's at the heart of this issue, and is thus far the only verifiable piece of data we actually have.

Surprising that NSA and the WH reacted such if no "substantive content" was being recorded. I have heard the Pres say that no one is listening to our phonecons but I didnt hear him say that no one was recording them.

Also, some thing else doesnt make sense. If the FISA warrant allows phone logs to be compiled then why does the NSA have to get permission to see the data if the data is only phone logs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2993991

Just yesterday it seems people were saying the WH HADN'T reacted, and that was a sign of something nefarious. Now you're saying it HAS reacted, and that's a bad sign too?

I'm not sure I understand your question. My understanding is the NSA is running metadata through a computer program to identify patterns among certain numbers that might provoke interest. If they find such a pattern, it then has to seek another warrant for information related to that specific number. So yes, two warrants would be needed.

The link you post is to a discussion of a Daily Show segment, which I'll eventually watch. But comments back and forth about a TV program without any further content doesn't do much for me.

Personally, I'd like to see the Patriot Act and FISA repealed, or amended after serious public debate not conducted in the aftermath of 9-11. But for that to happen I think we need as clear an understanding of what is actually happening as possible--and not a lot of conjecture and possible misinformation.

In short, I want more data.

knows the facts when he is just stating his opinion.

I gave you the link to the Daily Show because they discuss the large number of times the NSA went to the FISA court to get into the "data". If it was only phone logs, they wouldnt need additional approval because of the warrant they already had for the "phone logs".

Some people dont believe metadata is harmless: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022993979

of this case. You may be right about your concerns, but frankly I have no way of knowing one way or the other. It IS disturbing, but then the whole "national security state" is disturbing. On the other hand, the warrant I've seen relating to this case is time limited (it expires next month). One reason for multiple warrants could be that the NSA has to keep going back for more time. But I just don't know.

I forget if I've mentioned this on this thread, but Frontline did a program on the NSA/National Security State maybe six years back, and it was rebroadcast recently with some added material to bring it more up to date. It's a real eye-opener. One thing that sticks out in my mind was a comment that nobody ever cuts funding for "national security"--the political risks are too great (and also, I suppose, perhaps the national security risks). The program featured a team of journalists who were attempting to track down the whereabouts of all the major NSA facilities in the US, and it was amazing. Huge underground office buildings, ten floors deep, millions of square feet of secret facilities. All of it inaccessible to the general public. Little transparency, and evidently far too little accountability.

Like I said, I hope we get some real discussion about all this, and not just the usual posturing.

Best wishes.

What are you trying to do here?

They just want to be outraged at Obama over what's in their heads about what they think the NSA did as opposed to what they actually did.

they should have to provide probable cause and get a fucking WARRANT first

4th goddamn amendment

It's called denial.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022993979

This could be interesting.


Everyone move along.
Nothing to see here.
Its just your metadata.

Who cares if you have calls to your
Therapist,
Suicide Hotline,
AA,
newspapers,
porn chat lines,
neighbor's wives,
travel agencies,
Immigration,
OWS supporters,
ACLU,
"known dissidents",
Bail Bond agencies,
lawyers,
tax attorneys,
school principles,
Legalize Marijuana groups,
MoveON,
Sarah Palin joke line,
Democratic Underground,

.....or any one of a hundred other places that you would prefer the NSA not keep a file on?

We should all choose Saturday to make as many random calls as possible.

If they have all this information, why can't the FTC find the idiots who ignore the "Do not Call" lists and throw them in jail? Why do I have to be harassed every day by someone from Hermosa Beach, CA using an illegal (in California) robotic calling device and telling me about their home mortgage scam? Why can't Law enforcement catch them with all their technology?

As others have said if the government wants to get you, they will turn up the magnification on their microscope until nothing can look good, but beware, agent Mike, payback's a bitch.

Try again.