Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 40      1   2   3   4   Next   »
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #1 

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily
Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama

From The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order



ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #2 
Here is the order to Verizon, from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #3 
The court order specifically targets Americans, not foreigners.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/05/nsas-verizon-spying-order-specifically-targeted-americans-not-foreigners/
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #4 
Here is a one minute video of Obama railing against the domestic spying his administration is now known to be doing on an unprecedented scale.



Stunning hypocrisy.
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #5 
The surveillance state.  Started by Bush, greatly expanded by Obama including a huge new facility in Utah that can accumulate ungodly amounts of data.  NSA transformed into fascist tyrannical agency spying on not just terrorists but all Americans and a new facility for national databanks.  Not exactly what our founders envisioned, yet people keep voting for more govt!
__________________
Susan
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #6 
Here is an article from May 26 that quotes the head of the NSA, Keith Alexander:

The great irony here is we're the only ones not spying on the American people."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/26/us-cybersecurity-nsa-alexander-idUSBRE94P06S20130526

"only ones not" = all agencies (other than NSA) *are* spying on the American people. That a pretty big reveal.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,581
Reply with quote  #7 
1) First rule of Fight Club...oh wait, too late, the cat's out of the bag.
2) It's not just Verizon.
3) Your TSA at work.
4) Can't "openly" monitor foreign nationals. Not our bailiwick.
5) There's worse, but this is considered constitutional (see below), so it will be openly discussed.
6) Key issue is paper/electronic records, not conversations.
7) There have been warnings of this.
8) You guys never dig this stuff up. Instead rely on the mainstream media. I'm disappointed.
9) More to follow.
10) Call Mom. Unless she's visiting the Middle East, and have a nice day.

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #8 
I'm not smart enough to know the pros and cons of this type surveillance but I do know many Republicans are supporting these steps taken by the NSA and want the NSA to continue.  If it is your opportunity to point out hypocrisy by President Obama, so be it.  Maybe once the President was more informed about the information gathering techniques being used, he changed his mind.  I don't know.  What I do know is those objecting inside here are every bit as hypocritical as I never once heard you challenge the last Administration for doing precisely the same thing.  Of course, this happens to be a President you don't like.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,581
Reply with quote  #9 

Dewey-

Actually, some did just that. LMUfan comes to mind, as he generally, a recent post an exception, rails on in objection about such issues.

Members of Congress and the Senate, from both sides, have issued veiled warnings about this practice in the recent past. No outcry.

It isn't a political issue. Past or present. It just is. Has been and always will be.

The difference this time is the rhetoric will be that it is constitutional acceptable.

If they say so. Gives new meaning to an oft used Vonnegut quote,

"So it goes."


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #10 
Bill - Thanks.  I was referring to when Bush was in office.  These same practices were not criticized here in this forum while Bush was President.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - Thanks.  I was referring to when Bush was in office.  These same practices were not criticized here in this forum while Bush was President.


Are you saying that this is the same thing Bush was doing?

Are you saying that you have no problem with a candidate saying one thing and then doing something altogether different once elected? Because your statement above sounds like you're okay with elected officials simply changing their minds once they are in office.

Do you prefer the Obama in the campaign speech video above, or the Obama in reality today?

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #12 
FIB - Are you saying a person should never be open to being persuaded why his way may not be the correct way?  Obviously, this President was persuaded that these tactics were necessary for the safety of Americans.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - Are you saying a person should never be open to being persuaded why his way may not be the correct way?  Obviously, this President was persuaded that these tactics were necessary for the safety of Americans.


Talk about a non-answer.
Not surprised.
Never mind.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #14 
FIB - Quite the contrary.  As usual, you refuse to answer.  I wasn't critical of these surveillance programs when Bush did them and I'm not going to be critical now.  I don't understand enough about them to make such a call.  I think my answer clearly pointed out I accept the President's decision to continue if he feels it's necessary.  I think that's pretty clear in my answer.  You're the one who refused to say if you can accept a candidate changing his position on certain matters.

PS:  Your reply made it clear you understood exactly what I was saying.  Not sure why you're suggesting I avoided the answer.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #15 
So you answer my question with a question, then accuse me of not answering your question, and it looks like you did a bit of an exit to your post as well.

And no, your answer was not responsive. All you offered was what you think Obama did, not what you believe a candidate / elected official should do. That was my question - what do you believe? Not - how do you justify the actions of your boy in the White House?

Here's my answer to your question - if a candidate runs on a platform that includes a heavy dose of criticising what the opposition is doing, and then gets elected and takes those policies he ran against to a whole other level, then he has some serious explaining to do.

If I vote for a mayor because he promises to launch an offensive against crime, but then when elected he cuts the police force in half, yeah, I want an explanation, because I'm not going to be very happy. Lacking an explanation, I'm going to feel like I got swindled by a politician lying to win votes.

So when did Obama pull this 180 on civil liberties? And what what explanation did he offer?
B10IS1

Registered:
Posts: 623
Reply with quote  #16 

I doubt Obama even knew about this until he read it in the paper. I'm sure he will express outrage & probably have the NSA investigate themselves.

By the way, I know this was done under Bush as well, but to this extent?

Did you see Harry Reid talking about it, saying for all to take it easy, don't worry, nothing is different...I'm sure Harry & those in Washington know best, after all they are much smarter than us.

Guess the guys from Boston must have not been Verizon customers ?

ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #17 
From Politico

WASHINGTON — Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash's office is circulating a letter in Congress that demands the government answer questions about the scale and scope of the National Security Agency phone record snooping exposed by the Guardian on Wednesday.

The article, including the Amash letter, are here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/libertarian-congressman-presses-government-for-details-of-ve?s=mobile
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by B10IS1

I doubt Obama even knew about this until he read it in the paper. I'm sure he will express outrage & probably have the NSA investigate themselves.

By the way, I know this was done under Bush as well, but to this extent?

Did you see Harry Reid talking about it, saying for all to take it easy, don't worry, nothing is different...I'm sure Harry & those in Washington know best, after all they are much smarter than us.

Guess the guys from Boston must have not been Verizon customers ?



Bush's warrant less wiretapping targeted suspicious individuals, this NSA activity targets all Americans (who use Verizon, as we know so far) and there's a big difference between the two.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #19 
FIB - Do you still not understand my answer?  Generally speaking, of course we want our politicians we vote for to do the things they say.  However, I'm fully aware some of those things could change once the person gets in office.  This issue was not part of the reason why Obama got my vote.  If it were, then I may haven't gotten angry.  He also promised to end the Bush tax cuts and only partly succeeded.  Again, I understand positions might change and I'll choose when and where it's worthy of my anger.

I ask again, can you accept somebody you voted for changing their mind on something they said they'd do?  Particularly if it's an issue that is not of significant importance to you?  There you go.  My answer for the third time.  I am okay with whatever he decides needs to be legally done in this NSA area.  I haven't the information needed to object or support his decision.  My entry into this thread was simply to ask why no objection in here, when Bush was doing the same, but now you're all over it?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Bush's warrant less wiretapping targeted suspicious individuals, this NSA activity targets all Americans (who use Verizon, as we know so far) and there's a big difference between the two.


FIB - The difference is the NSA got a court order while Bush did it secretly without court approval.  Big difference.  Secondly, there is no way of knowing the scope of the Bush Administration, or to claim you know how far they went in their surveillance programs, because that classified information was not leaked like this classified information apparently was.  You can't begin to know for certain.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Bush's warrant less wiretapping targeted suspicious individuals, this NSA activity targets all Americans (who use Verizon, as we know so far) and there's a big difference between the two.


FIB - The difference is the NSA got a court order while Bush did it secretly without court approval.  Big difference.  Secondly, there is no way of knowing the scope of the Bush Administration, or to claim you know how far they went in their surveillance programs, because that classified information was not leaked like this classified information apparently was.  You can't begin to know for certain.


The NSA did not get a court order. You're right, you don't know enough about this to comment intelligently.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMUfan
The bad news:  I'm a Verizon customer.  The good news: I used zero phone minutes last month.  I don't care if they monitor the calls I don't make.

Aside: That doesn't mean I didn't make any phone calls, it just means I didn't use minutes. Phone calls went through the data connection, something the feds can't track, at least not yet, because it's encrypted.


Don't know if this applies in your case, but here is a new WaPo story on PRISM and BLARNEY, two government programs that track pretty much everything everyone does on the Internet. Most of the large Internet companies are cooperating with the government.

Use of these programs has "exploded" under the Obama admin. Read this, then war h the video further up the screen. Give you an idea about Obama's high ideals.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

Excerpt
"They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type. "
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
The NSA did not get a court order. You're right, you don't know enough about this to comment intelligently.


The Guardian newspaper published a highly classified April U.S. court order that allows the government access to all of Verizon's phone records on a daily basis, for both domestic and international calls.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #24 
Here is the Editorial Board of the New York Times, calling out Obama for his overreach and hypocrisy, demanding an explanation.

Excerpt:
We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the Bush administration’s surveillance policy “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&smid=tw-nytopinion&partner=rss&emc=rss
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
The NSA did not get a court order. You're right, you don't know enough about this to comment intelligently.


The Guardian newspaper published a highly classified April U.S. court order that allows the government access to all of Verizon's phone records on a daily basis, for both domestic and international calls.

FIB - Where are you getting your information?
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #26 
Another quote from the NYT Editorial Board posting:

"The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Not exactly pulling any punches.

Here is the link again
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #27 
FIB - Are you ignoring me?

Bush was criticized for warrant-less wiretapping that ignored FISA court. Obama warrants don't involve wiretapping, went through FISA.

ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #28 
I've moved on, don't have time to explain the law and how the government worked around it. It's easy enough to find online if you really want to know.

Here is why the whistleblower blew the lid on PRISM

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.


Now some tech companies are denying their complicity. Little wonder, as the backlash could be severe.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Bush's warrant less wiretapping targeted suspicious individuals, this NSA activity targets all Americans (who use Verizon, as we know so far) and there's a big difference between the two.


FIB - The difference is the NSA got a court order while Bush did it secretly without court approval.  Big difference.  Secondly, there is no way of knowing the scope of the Bush Administration, or to claim you know how far they went in their surveillance programs, because that classified information was not leaked like this classified information apparently was.  You can't begin to know for certain.
The NSA did not get a court order. You're right, you don't know enough about this to comment intelligently.


FIB - OK, I've got some time so I'll try to explain it to the readers. 

We have a FISA Court, setup in 1978, that is supposed to oversee the Government's request for surveillance warrants.  Despite what ForeverInBlue is trying to suggest, the NSA, in this particular incident, did receive the necessary court order.  When President Bush did his wiretapping, he determined he need not run it by the FISA court and determined he had the Executive power to do so.  Not sure why FIB suggested I didn't know what I was talking about.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,875
Reply with quote  #30 
This should come as a shock - to no one ever, except, well, you know... Lol

From The Guardian:

Obama's new FBI chief approved Bush's NSA warrantless wiretapping scheme
James Comey becomes just the latest symbol of the Obama legacy: normalizing what was very recently viewed as radical


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/james-comey-fbi-bush-nsa

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.