On Sat, 27 May 2017 05:14:43 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Re: NSA's illegal surveillance of Americans" Lol. But surveillance of non americans is OK? And 'legal' surveillance of 'americans' is OK? And isn't "national review" like a primary source for american fascism? But seriously, who the fuck 'americans' think they are talking as surveillance of 'americans' was a terrible thing? > > [partial quote follows] > The NSA intentionally and routinely intercepted communications of > American citizens in violation of the Constitution. During the Obama > years, the National Security Agency intentionally and routinely > intercepted and reviewed communications of American citizens in > violation of the Constitution and of court-ordered guidelines > implemented pursuant to federal law. The unlawful surveillance > appears to have been a massive abuse of the government’s > foreign-intelligence-collection authority, carried out for the > purpose of monitoring the communications of Americans in the United > States. While aware that it was going on for an extensive period of > time, the administration failed to disclose its unlawful surveillance > of Americans until late October 2016, when the administration was > winding down and the NSA needed to meet a court deadline in order to > renew various surveillance authorities under the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Act (FISA). The administration’s stonewalling about the > scope of the violation induced an exasperated Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court to accuse the NSA of “an institutional lack of > candor” in connection with what the court described as “a very > serious Fourth Amendment issue.” (The court is the federal tribunal > created in 1978 by FISA; it is often referred to as a “secret court” > because proceedings before it are classified and ex parte — meaning > only the Justice Department appears before the court.) The FISA-court > opinion is now public, available here. The unlawful surveillance was > first exposed in a report at Circa by John Solomon and Sara Carter, > who have also gotten access to internal, classified reports. The > story was also covered extensively Wednesday evening by James Rosen > and Bret Baier on Fox News’s Special Report. According to the > internal reports reviewed by Solomon and Carter, the illegal > surveillance may involve more than 5 percent of NSA searches of > databases derived from what is called “upstream” collection of > Internet communications. As the FISA court explains, upstream > collection refers to the interception of communications “as they > transit the facilities of an Internet backbone carrier.” These are > the data routes between computer networks. The routes are hosted by > government, academic, commercial, and similar high-capacity network > centers, and they facilitate the global, international exchange of > Internet traffic. Upstream collection from the Internet’s “backbone,” > which accounts for about 9 percent of the NSA’s collection haul (a > massive amount of communications), is distinguished from interception > of communications from more familiar Internet service providers. > Upstream collection is a vital tool for gathering intelligence > against foreign threats to the United States. It is, of course, on > foreign intelligence targets — non-U.S. persons situated outside the > U.S. — that the NSA and CIA are supposed to focus. Foreign agents > operating inside the U.S. are mainly the purview of the FBI, which > conducts surveillance of their communications through warrants from > the FISA court — individualized warrants based on probable cause that > a specific person is acting as an agent of a foreign power. The NSA > conducts vacuum intelligence-collection under a different section of > FISA — section 702. It is inevitable that these section 702 > surveillance authorities will incidentally intercept the > communications of Americans inside the United States if those > Americans are communicating with the foreign target. This does not > raise serious Fourth Amendment concerns; after all, non-targeted > Americans are intercepted all the time in traditional criminal > wiretaps because they call, or are called by, the target. But FISA > surveillance is more controversial than criminal surveillance because > the government does not have to show probable cause of a crime — and > when the targets are foreigners outside the U.S., the government does > not have to make any showing; it may target if it has a legitimate > foreign-intelligence purpose, which is really not much of a hurdle at > all. So, as noted in coverage of the Obama administration’s > monitoring of Trump-campaign officials, FISA section 702 provides > some privacy protection for Americans: The FISA court orders > “minimization” procedures, which require any incidentally intercepted > American’s identity to be “masked.” That is, the NSA must sanitize > the raw data by concealing the identity of the American. Only the > “masked” version of the communication is provided to other U.S. > intelligence agencies for purposes of generating reports and > analyses. As I have previously explained, however, this system relies > on the good faith of government officials in respecting privacy: > There are gaping loopholes that permit American identities to be > unmasked if, for example, the NSA or some other intelligence official > decides doing so is necessary to understand the intelligence value of > the communication. While that kind of incidental collection raises > the concerns of privacy advocates, it is a small problem compared to > upstream collection, the technology of which poses profound Fourth > Amendment challenges. > > Read more at: > http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447973/nsa-illegal-surveillance-americans-obama-administration-abuse-fisa-court-response > > > > >