Massive amounts of raw Internet traffic The NSA intercepts huge amounts of raw data, and stores billions of communication records per day in its databases. Using the NSA’s XKEYSCORE software, analysts can see “nearly everything a user does on the Internet” including emails, social media posts, web sites you visit, addresses typed into Google Maps, files sent, and more.

from the Snowden docs was that the NSA was trying very hard to avoid American citizens in their searches and that they were reporting quarterly all the times they did so accidentally. That was evident for those who read the emails between NTOC's Oversight and Guidance and NSA's Office of General Counsel.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/18/discovery-sigint-targeting-scenarios-compliance/

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.

The practice isn’t frequent — one official estimated a handful of cases in the last decade — but it’s common enough to garner its own spycraft label: LOVEINT.

'probable cause', see the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (unless you are of the opinion that the US Constitution just a 'quaint old document' of course). I called Verizon, our only available carrier here in the boondocks and asked them if they could send me a copy of the warrant that allowed them to share my 'data' with the Government so that I could look at the 'probable cause' that put me on the list of people whose 'assets' (again see the US Constitution, Amend 1V) could be confiscated.

The Rep denied that they HAD shared my 'data' with the Govt. I guess she hasn't been reading the news. I assured here that even the POTUS had verified this and perhaps someone higher up could answer my questions. She was outraged. 'We do not violate the privacy rights of our customers' she said. Well, at least she acknowledged that doing such a thing would be grossly criminal.

So, how does a 'group warrant' for millions of 'suspects' work? How do you show 'probable cause' for each of millions of suspects? Is there somewhere we can all get to see why some secret court judge looked at the 'probable cause' that made us 'suspect' so we know what it is we have done wrong?

The second warrant is to access individual information. While all the info is collected and stored, a small fraction of it is actually accessed.

contentions that group warrants are unconstitutional.

and that people do not have an expectation to privacy with such information. That specifically includes phone numbers dialed. What we now talk of as 'Metadata'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

entire population. Where does it say that the Govt can go to a SECRET court, issue a warrant WITHOUT PROBABLE cause on the entire population to take control of their 'effects'?? Do you understand that this language still used today, in most English speaking nations, 'the right of the people' means each individual person has that the right.

So, what was the probable cause for the Govt to seize MY 'data' or 'effects'? I asked that question of my phone company. Still haven't seen what it is I apparently did that made this warrant legitimate.

Maybe YOU can tell us what the Probable Cause for the 'collection and storing' of people's was? No one seems to know?

Fascinating attempt here on DU of all places to misinterpret the 4th Amendment to protect Bush, actually using the same type of manipulation of the wording of the Constitution to do so. I remember the outrage on the Left and in fact, we know now even among many in Bush's own DOJ, to these crimes against the people, many quitting their jobs rather than spy on their own people.

And then they got Congress to actually CHANGE the law, RETROACTIVELY to cover their crimes, as if that is even possible.

Are you serious, btw? I know that I don't often get the intended humor of people especially when it relates to such a serious attack on this democracy. If you were joking, then ignore this post.

rights against the intrusion their Govt. into their lives without showing probable cause on each individual.

According to what you stated, the 4th Amend. has been misinterpreted for over two centuries by legal scholars and what it really means is that the Govt can issue a 'collective warrant' in a secret court on every single American citizen without showing probable cause, even a 'one size fits all' probable cause' for the entire population.

I'm trying to remember, because it's been a while since I had these same discussions during the Bush era where the Constitution was constantly under attack, and I do not recall even any of them claiming that no individual rights are granted in the 4th Amendment. Not even the right wing SC airc, ever tried to make that argument. That is why I asked if you were serious.

Looks like you are assuming that he meant he could sit at his desk and just watch purchases in real time.

When you make a purchase, when you buy a book. All of that is collected

Of course Eddie's main goal is attention so he said in such a way to make one think he could see everyone's purchases flashing across his screen... Gasp! Face palm!

flashing across the screen.....maybe a person who did not understand the whole concept of gathering and viewing information - a low-information type of person, if you will - would think that, IMO.
Or someone who was really really reaching for something to blather about, trying, for no reason I can think of, to conflate their opinion of Snowden with what Snowden is saying, thereby, (I guess?) hoping to deflect attention away from what he is saying.
Doesn't work, but is sort of entertaining. I give major props for dedication, though!

You are entertaining too!

it because Snowden said it, or refuse to believe it because you don't understand how it can be done and need "proof".
And if you already knew it was happening, a bit disingenuous to demand proof or whatever, I think.

I think those demanding proof of something are those who assumed he meant he could all our purchases.

understand what he was talking about, or misinterpreted it. A post in this thread was demanding to know exactly how this stuff is done. Other posts say he is not giving proof.
The OP is based on a wrong assumption, is all.
Anyway, all the blather on both sides doesn't change what is actually happening.
And if Obama is seeking to give the providers of all of our information immunity - yeah, it is happening.

And I can tell you that he couldn't see your purchases if you paid cash.

How would he know what purchases you made? By having access to credit card account information. Your credit card companies already have all that info. Could he know what book you bought? Probably not, unless he's also got access to the bookstore databases that also track that info. So I'd guess, for instance, that if you bought that book on Amazon, he might, might, know what book you bought. If you bought it with a credit card at a small bookstore, he'd know you bought something there, but not what you bought. And if you paid cash, he probably wouldn't see it at all, unless you were a target of actual surveillance with human eyes, which I doubt you are.

That would be the 'how'. As to 'proof', that I'll leave to others.

As a former systems/DB guy, I know I could review every single purchase made with any of our systems, including what people were buying. I could have swiped something like 100000 credit cards if I'd been criminally inclined - every card ever used in our systems. And no one would have known until people started finding bogus charges showing up on their accounts, because I controlled all the logs, all the auditing info. I HAD to have that info, because I was the one who coded up all of the databases and all of the accounting and ordering software, and I was the one who had to fix any problems that came up. Database guys and programmers have a hell of a lot of power. Which is why I think people who use foreign coding shops are fools, but that's another argument.

we make that they see? I think with the way the data is collected and the companies it's collected from make it very possible that agents can see what we do.

And I think you are taking what he said to mean it's like a movie on a TV screen. And I don't think that's what he was saying at all, I think that if they are looking at a person they can see the activities. My SIL has a program where he can see what his Daughter is doing on the computer and her phone why wouldn't the NSA have something even better.

I see no reason why the government is seeking immunity for the companies it collects the data from if what the NSA is doing is so aboveboard. The word "immunity" tells me what they are doing is wrong.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

to get the information he had in the first place is just forgotten. Snowden was an IT guy he mapped computers & fixed networks this pretending to be all knowing is getting down right comical.

Just one of a long, long line of stuff that Snowden has said that doesn't make a lick of sense even though his supporters lap it up unthinkingly.

Of many hackers and is dangerous. This information should not be in the hands of thieves. No boundaries for some people.

Did he once have such access? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

Snowden is now out of the picture. What he had is in other hands and he ha no access to get more. His play has been made and his value is reduced to near zero. Snowden is done.

How could the NSA see people's purchases? What kind of software intercepts are they using? Note how he never explains all the stuff he spouts about how he 'knows' things like this.

If he knows, why won't he tell us how the NSA goes about doing this? He won't because he has no idea.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

He has a very good idea how this is done, because that is what he was working on.
Anyone who has warehoused data and then sifted through it for reporting purposes knows how it is done.
Not rocket science, really. And I notice no one in the NSA is denying that this stuff is being done.......

sort of a joke.
Besides, Snowden is saying it is possible to do it, he didn't say everyone was sitting around watching purchases or whatever.

After the LoveInt matter, NSA employees were disciplined and/or fired. Is Snowden saying that no additional safeguards were put into place after that? How would he know?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

That is, when people were trying to spy on citizens of the country, the system would deny the request, but if they were foreign nationals it could work.

Snowden isn't really making any sense unless he's saying the database was unencrypted and he could do a low level search on the raw database and pull the data without the warrant. If that was the case he should make it known rather than waffle.

get the info. Everything he says that can only be done with a warrant, he's never once mentioned that it requires a warrant to do it. It's irresponsible and misleading.

No evidence offered, just "Trust and believe in me." No sale here. When someone is clearly trying to sell me something, I usually shut the door.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

The NSA admits it does, and says it is for fighting terrorism. Obama is seeking immunity for the companies who are providing data.
Is Obama delusional about the gathering of data?
Snowden is not trying to sell you anything. He is just reporting.
He doesn't need to say oh, I am using SQL or Hadoop or whatever. That is irrelevant.
Again, the NSA does not deny they are storing (warehousing) the data. They are just saying they would never look at it without a warrant.

It certainly doesn't mean they are doing everything Snowden says. Again, if Snowden 'knows' this is being done, why doesn't he tell us specifics? Where is the data? How often is it collected? Who has access? Apparently not Ed Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

And that the hierarchy chain (that is, the person that says "a warrant exists&quot is not fulfilled because of that.

I personally haven't seen much technical talk from him.

Whining because he has not provided technical stuff is just deflective blather, and really doesn't accomplish anything.
He knows what the NSA is doing, and the NSA knows very well what it is doing. All this other blather is just flak, and doesn't really accomplish any aim that I can think of.

Because Snowden says so? I only believe part of what he says and the rest smacks of the desparation of someone who has painted himself into the proverbial corner. I don't do faith-based acceptance of everything someone who seeks the camera says. I tend to be cautious and prefer to have some hard facts. Not from Missouri but one state over and need to see something beyond "because Snowden says so."

I think over simplifying muddles the evidence and lends to a loss in credibility. The fact that you have to explain what he "possibly meant" means you don't know for sure.

I hate this debate style. Put the cards on the table, it's no big deal.

and they link remotely to your PC?

They can see what you're doing in real-time. And you can see them moving the mouse cursor and typing, clicking on icons etc.

Corporations pre-install the software on your machine that allows that access.

Here is one of the more popular ones. http://www.bomgar.com/

Yes, I am in IT and work with PCs. As sorry a state as NSA's security was to allow Snowden unauthorized access to Sharepoint sites, I'm betting they have much greater security for the things that really count than your average corporation.

Even Carl Bernstein said their safeguards look pretty robust.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

A list of some accusations laid out by Nance Greggs..

"Whatever Eddie says is to be accepted as 100% truthful and accurate.

Snowden says he could have accessed Obama's email. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says he could have watched what people were posting on the internet as they typed it. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says that he could monitor people's on-line purchases, and other internet activities. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden said he couldn't go to his superiors with his 'knowledge' of wrongdoing. Almost a year later, he suddenly remembered that he DID alert them via emails on the topic. Proof offered of having done so - zero.

Snowden now says that "entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.” Proof offered - zero.

Snowden felt compelled to disclose details of domestic spying - and the fact that he disclosed our country's spying tactics when it came to other countries was just innocent inadvertentance.

Snowden passed on hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to third parties without ever knowing what those documents contained, and what the consequences of those disclosures might be - because a "true patriot" doesn't give a shit about those kinds of details, or what's at stake.

Snowden "risked his life and his freedom" to inform his fellow citizens - including those SS and welfare moochers whom he openly despised, and those 'leakers' who deserved to be shot in the balls - of all of the wrongdoing he has yet to prove.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4906134

LOL

All is well....our government would never do anything shady. It would never lie to us. Obviously, Snowden just wants attention and made it all up for personal gain. Nope, no spying going on here...

alleged rat fucking?

I really don't care what he is, what he is has no bearing on anything. The discussion about what he is, however, is a great diversionary tactic.

ever spent time contemplating a person's ratfucking. Whatever works for you.

I just think it's a stupid expression and it's been used to death.

Being snarky only works when you don't assume something.

derp derpety derp derp.

#ignored

if I hire ChoicePoint to data mine exactly how many widgets were bought in 2001 they can connect all of the demographic info with the purchaces. All of it. If properly motivated I have no doubt could provide names and full addresses and photos.

We are all hopped up over this but business has been doing this a long time. If or when government uses the info to hurt or intimidate people then we have a different conversation.

"If I had a warrant and if I was an intelligence analyst and if I had the proper review protocols in place then I know, I just really know, darn it, that I could see stuff!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

Given the fact James Clapper can officially lie on the subject of government spying I'll go with Snowden for now.

Then why should anyone listen to Snowden's dribble? He went to work in the NSA under false pretenses, continues to dribble tales and his newest occupation is Putin's patsy. If you can not see he question is pure crap then Clapper is very honest.

Those organizations don't comment on much publicly.

He never disclosed how that was even possible, for one......not even a basic description. And yet, people take his word for it.....

You're being disingenuous as usual.

And expecting others to play along.

he "did" see every purchase crossing his screen - only that he "could have" if he'd wanted to.

Just like he "could have" read Obama's emails. Just like he "could have" watched people's thoughts as they were being typed. Just like he "could have" done all kinds of things that he has yet to prove.

It is of no consequence. As long as Snowden "says" something could be done, it is accepted by his fan base that those things are not only do-able, but are done on a routine basis.

No proof required.

And don't bother pointing out how Snowden has been caught in his own lies, because you'll just be told that it's not about the messenger ...

Good to see you posting again on DU. You're one of the reasons I joined DU!

I'm just passin' through is all.

his lies. Snowden is his own worst enemy.

and that Snowden's not told a single provable lie to date, prudence would dictate that Snowden's story is somewhat more likely than the Administrations's story.

We don't go with 'somewhat more likely' around these parts. If Snowden has no evidence, he has no right to try and sell us whatever goods he's peddling. End of discussion.

You go ahead and list the Obama Administration's 'multiple' lies regarding the NSA. Go ahead. You're probably talking about Clapper, of course. Big fucking deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

"I am not here to hide from justice." -said from his undisclosed location in Hong Kong. That's the money quote from Snowden, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

As Manny says, we've caught the NSA lying their faces off. Snowden hasn't been caught in a lie. Integrity matters.

'Integrity'? From Ed ("I am not here to hide from justice&quot Snowden? The guy who falsified his resume, lied to his coworkers and stole thousands of documents because he said he "saw things" but won't ever tell us what that means?

No, I'm still going with the guy we elected over Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

Have fun with that. Oh, and I'm aware that you already know about the big fat lie to Congress, so I'm skipping your rhetorical.

Sheesh!

in terms of accessing internet data about anyone with an email address, do you really doubt his claim that the NSA could access the purchases of anyone who has an email?

Could it be it's because he's the darling of the Tea Party?

You said "Could somebody please provide me a link to the evidence that every purchase crossed his screen?"

You imply that Snowden claimed to be able to see every purchase of everyone at a time, in real time.

but he only referred to any one particular person he chose to spy on.

You wanted your readers to think that Snowden said something outlandish. That's why you chopped up a sentence from the paragraph of the motherjones article. Do you have time to read more than one sentence?

Hmmm. .

The author says Snowden made a claim that wasnt made.

By pretending that the issue is a joke about Snowden, you seek to divert attention from whether or not Snowden claimed that every purchase of every person is being seen in real time.

This place is crawling with Third Way/MIC trolls, who work as a team to tirelessly defend the interests of worldwide fascist oligarchy. After you are here for awhile they will become obvious because of their constant MIC propaganda BS. They constantly support wealthy private interest sponsored conservative, anti-democratic, corporate government favorable positions.

If you plan on posting on DU consistently, I suggest becoming a member and using the ignore button. The ignore button allows you to hide content from all the paid corporatist trolls, who, again, become easily recognizable in a relatively short period of time. And there are a quite a few of them posting here, which is to be expected on an internet forum comprised mainly of progressive Democrats.

This makes DU a much more pleasurable and valuable experience. You won't have to contend with corporatist propagandists who are paid to convince the naive and "not too bright" among us of the unquestionable righteousness of the corporate agenda to end any semblance of self-governance, environmental protections, and overall freedom for the overwhelming majority of the people on the planet.

Welcome to DU!

I'll heed your advice.