Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Th1onein

(8,514 posts)
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:42 PM Jun 2013

ONE 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.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
2. Which companies were they referring to?
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:50 PM
Jun 2013

There are apparently two parts to this story that involve different companies.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
3. The NSA doesn't have access to any "Internet Companies" data, front door, back door, or otherwise.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:52 PM
Jun 2013

You're mistaken.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
9. It's a matter of fact. It has nothing to do with believing them.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:12 PM
Jun 2013

That said, I do believe Google's CEO more than a Ron Paul supporting NSA mole with a political agenda.

tkmorris

(11,138 posts)
14. I don't want to rag on you friend, but...
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 05:08 PM
Jun 2013

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)
11. So you just make up your response out of whole cloth then
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:20 PM
Jun 2013

How do you know otherwise. A hunch maybe

pinto

(106,886 posts)
10. Link? Thanks.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:17 PM
Jun 2013

"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)
12. How we forget: NSA *does* have access to domestic email & phone calls
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:41 PM
Jun 2013

Remember this oldie but goodie from 2006?

Bush Defends Legality of Domestic Spy Program

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:

Officials: NSA mistakenly intercepted emails, phone calls of innocent Americans

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 Obama’s 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 Blair’s 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)
15. Yes and no.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 05:39 PM
Jun 2013

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.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
16. Why do you assume the companies are the only place the data exists?
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 05:41 PM
Jun 2013
If they don't have access to the servers, then they have access to something else that has access to the servers


Or they collect the data via other means. Such as monitoring the Internet links that enter the US.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ONE statement from the go...