General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsONE statement from the government gives credibility to Snowden:
The Obama administration stated that the employees at the internet companies didn't know what they were requesting from them; didn't know what information the warrants were requesting. They spilled the beans right there.
Think about it--if the people at the internet company never knew what information that the NSA was requesting, how were they to answer the warrant and give them the material they needed? They didn't have to, because the NSA had access to EVERYTHING, and then "tasked" the system under the warrant for what it wanted. If they don't have access to the servers, then they have access to something else that has access to the servers.
They told on themselves.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There are apparently two parts to this story that involve different companies.
tridim
(45,358 posts)You're mistaken.
magellan
(13,257 posts)We are left to rely on these people not to intentionally do this, and to self-report when it "unwittingly" occurs.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am genuinely curious.
-Laelth
tridim
(45,358 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)If you've got some inside info., I'd love to hear it.
-Laelth
tridim
(45,358 posts)That said, I do believe Google's CEO more than a Ron Paul supporting NSA mole with a political agenda.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)You can't just call something a "fact" without justifying that it is, in fact, a fact. So far you have offered nothing more than "because I say so" as evidence which is exceptionally weak. I take that back, it isn't weak. It's completely irrelevant. If it's a fact as you claim, prove it, or alternatively you can acknowledge that it isn't one. Any other course of action reveals your argument as a waste of everyone's time.
madokie
(51,076 posts)How do you know otherwise. A hunch maybe
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)And here I thought DUers couldn't match Freepers' talent for denying reality.
pinto
(106,886 posts)"The Obama administration stated that the employees at the internet companies didn't know what they were requesting from them; didn't know what information the warrants were requesting."
The Guardian has published a copy of the warrant, fwiw. If it's a legit copy, always a good disclaimer in early stages of a story, the request seems pretty clear albeit mired in legalese.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
magellan
(13,257 posts)Remember this oldie but goodie from 2006?
Despite a prohibition on eavesdropping on phone calls or e-mail messages that are regarded as purely domestic, The Times has reported that the N.S.A. has accidentally intercepted what are thought to be a small number of communications in which both ends were on American soil, due to technical confusion over what constitutes an "international" call.
Officials also say that the N.S.A., beyond actual eavesdropping on up to 500 phone numbers and e-mail addresses at any one time, has conducted much larger data-mining operations on vast volumes of communication within the United States to identify possible terror suspects.
To accomplish this, the agency has reached agreements with major American telecommunications companies to gain access to some of the country's biggest "switches," carrying phone and e-mail traffic into and out of the country.
This access hasn't stopped, in error or not, despite warrants, and whether or not the telcos know about it, as reported three days ago:
The National Security Agency has at times mistakenly intercepted the private email messages and phone calls of Americans who had no link to terrorism, requiring Justice Department officials to report the errors to a secret national security court and destroy the data, according to two former U.S. intelligence officials.
At least some of the phone calls and emails were pulled from among the hundreds of millions stored by telecommunications companies as part of an NSA surveillance program. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, Thursday night publicly acknowledged what he called a sensitive intelligence collection program after its existence was disclosed by the Guardian newspaper.
Ret. Adm. Dennis Blair, who served as President Obamas DNI in 2009 and 2010, told NBC News that, in one instance in 2009, analysts entered a phone number into agency computers and put one digit wrong, and mined a large volume of information about Americans with no connection to terror. The matter was reported to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose judges required that all the data be destroyed, he said.
Another former senior official, who asked not to be identified, confirmed Blairs recollection and said the incident created serious problems for the Justice Department, which represents the NSA before the federal judges on the secret court.
Now I don't know about anyone else, but it's crystal clear to me from all this that 1) the NSA can access Americans' phone and email content whenever they choose, and 2) have in fact done so, in "error", at least twice.
Whatever the truth about Snowden, you have to have buried your head in the sand to suggest his allegations don't stand up.
Igel
(35,356 posts)In the case referred to above, one wrong digit intercepted information that shouldn't have been intercepted.
On the other hand, it's not implied that the data is all there just waiting to be intercepted directly by the intelligence agency folk without any intervention or notification to the ISPs. That's merely inferred because the details about how the data are collected simply aren't stated. They're not relevant to the writer's purpose.
Phone calls and emails are also different kinds of critters. And they're dealt with, both per Snowden, *, Obama, and many others, differently. Which makes sense. Merging them is an error in many cases. Your emails are routed through a server and copies are kept, at least for a while, by the ISP. Your phone calls aren't stored, but data about them are.
Now, there's no question that they have the phone call metadata. That's been admitted, and it's been pointed out that they can access that information whenever it's deemed useful.
The email text, though, still seems to require a warrant. Under the terms of the warrant the government still has to provide information. In the cases mentioned, they've provided wrong information. Could they knowingly provide wrong information? Sure. But the court can examine their records any time, and the ISP's and government's records had better match. I'd be surprised if the court didn't have people on staff for the explicit purpose of ensuring compliance by *both* parties with the court's order.
magellan
(13,257 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or they collect the data via other means. Such as monitoring the Internet links that enter the US.