ACLU: NSA Retains Purely Domestic Communications Without Warrants, Documents Show

[Hissyspit]

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/nsa-claims-broad-authority-monitor-americans-international-calls-and-emails

NSA Claims Broad Authority to Monitor Americans' International Calls and Emails

Agency Retains Purely Domestic Communications Without Warrants, Documents Show

June 20, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, [e-mail]

NEW YORK – The government is engaged in warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans' international communications, according to secret FISA Court documents released today by The Guardian. Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director, made the following comments about the latest revelations:

"After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, we worried that the NSA would use the new authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' telephone calls and emails. These documents confirm many of our worst fears. The 'targeting' procedures indicate that the NSA is engaged in broad surveillance of Americans' international communications.

"The 'minimization' procedures that supposedly protect Americans' constitutional rights turn out to be far weaker than we imagined they could be. For example, the NSA claims the authority to collect and disseminate attorney-client communications – and even, in some circumstances, to turn them over to Justice Department prosecutors. The government also claims the authority to retain Americans' purely domestic communications in certain situations."

ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo said:

"Collectively, these documents show indisputably that the legal framework under which the NSA operates is far too feeble, that existing oversight mechanisms are ineffective, and that the government's surveillance policies now present a serious and ongoing threat to our constitutional rights. The release of these documents will help inform a crucial public debate that should have taken place years ago."

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Set me straight, is the ACLU in the racist category?

The hater category? Or both?



And do they have Obama Derangement Syndrome?

[Dragonfli]

11. I believe they are currently in the "ratfucker" category

awaiting an upgrade, only the Wampus and Pro know for sure

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Well it makes sense

Since they were in Nixon's shit...errr enemies list too!

[rhett o rick]

28. It's getting crowded under the "corporate apologist's" bus. nm

[nashville_brook]

49. it's such a stupid smear...ignorant of history

which makes the use of it seem all the more bad faith.

[City Lights]

32. The ACLU never loved him!

[noiretextatique]

34. clearly the ACLU is a firebagger organization

no better than the teabaggers

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I admit, I did not consider that possibility

thanks.

[noiretextatique]

44. welcome

someone posted that bs in a thread earlier. so-called firebaggers and teabaggers are identical how many people are on the third way payroll here?

[grasswire]

2. today is a good day to join the ACLU

www.aclu.org

Memberships for low-income, students, and seniors are available at low cost.

[reusrename]

30. isn't that how you get on the watch list?

[grasswire]

48. apparently we are all already on a watch list.

Perhaps you are on a watch list by posting on DU.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. This too, is entirely legal.

They are international communications. It's time to elect legislators that will change the FISA. This is a debate we should be having and I'm happy we're having it.

I see no reason why they shouldn't need a warrant to retain these communications.

[morningfog]

17. "The government also claims the authority to retain Americans' purely domestic communications"

Purely domestic communications are not international communications.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. How can the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Court issue legally issue domestic warrants?

[Cali_Democrat]

37. There were no warrants issued in these cases

because technically these were international communications,

Unless I'm misreading the article.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. "Technically"

They're intercepting and retaining the effect of US citizens calling and receiving inside the US. They're out of control and they need to be brought to heel.

[Cali_Democrat]

41. I agree

A warrant should be issued in these cases.

[Earth_First]

4. I missed the paragraph which stated "fuck President Obama...

...and the entire organization is fundamentally racist."

Could someone point out where that paragraph is/was?

[ProSense]

5. The ACLU

"After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, we worried that the NSA would use the new authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' telephone calls and emails. These documents confirm many of our worst fears. The 'targeting' procedures indicate that the NSA is engaged in broad surveillance of Americans' international communications.

...is quoting Greenwald, but he does a lot of speculating while reporting the procedures. The "international communications" are why there are safeguards. There is more to the report on the actual procedures.

<...>

The authors write that the documents "detail the circumstances in which data collected on U.S. persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the U.S., and reveals how U.S. call records are used to help remove U.S. citizens and residents from data collection."

"The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or e-mail information without warrants," Greenwald and Ball write.

The procedures governing collection of information on foreign targets "cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic U.S. communications," the Guardian says. It reported earlier this month that most data collection happens with approval of the FISA court under the Patriot Act.

The FISA court allows the NSA to keep data "that could potentially contain details of U.S. persons" for up to five years, and to retain and use "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications that contain "usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity," the Guardian writes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/20/nsa-surveillance-fisa-court/2442899/

[RobertEarl]

6. You finally admit they can take content?

Any and all content, not just meta data of US citizens?

[Harmony Blue]

8. So much information is surfacing

the corporate dems are no longer consistent with the story they are trying to sell us haha.

[ProSense]

10. It has

"You finally admit they can take content? Any and all content, not just meta data of US citizens?"

...been stated over and over that the take content in "international communications" dealing with foreign targets. The President stated as much in his Charlie Rose interview. That's why there are safeguards to protect Americans.

Still, the breaking news about queries is curious.

5 New Revelations About NSA Surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041631

[bvar22]

18. Are you aware of the protocols that the NSA uses to distinguish between "Foreign" and "Domestic"?

[font size=3]"The NSA's data dragnet operation snares information from everyone. According to accounts of how the system seems to work, it's then left to intelligence analysts to tweak their algorithms until they're only investigating hits on people they have a "51% confidence" of being foreign."[/font]

http://www.informationweek.com/security/privacy/nsa-prism-inside-the-modern-surveillance/240156341


...until THEY have a "51% confidence" of being foreign. (LOL)
THis ^ is NOT "The Onion", though that is where this belongs.
You can post as many [font color=blue]Little Blue Links[/font] as you want,
but THAT is an imaginary protection,
and NOTHING to inspire any confidence or trust in this system.

So claiming that the NSA ONLY spies on "foreigners" is as BOGUS as
the The FISA COURT turning down a warrant requested by the NSA.

[ProSense]

20. Here:

NYT: Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058210

[Monkie]

24. i have figured why the rumours started that the onion was closing

how can they compete?

[dkf]

27. As John Oliver says..."a coin toss plus 1%"!!!

[Coccydynia]

19. Well, there is a caveat

If the meta data does not contain sufficient information to determine the communication is international, the analysts are free to peruse the CONTENT, to determine the communication is, in fact, international.

That tells me the content is easy to access, and that a warrant is not required to access it.

[SlimJimmy]

23. Stop it with the facts and stuff. Some here at DU don't like that.

[Coccydynia]

25. Oops. My bad.

[reusrename]

33. I think there is quite a bit of confusion about the order of things,

In other words, it might be important to understand how these things are related to each other in time.

If so, then the next leak of classified material might be more information on how these analysts can look at anything in their database (which includes recordings of all our conversations and emails) with little or no oversight. I think it works something like this:

1) Yes, they do need a separate warrant in order to access content of individual phone calls/emails.

2) Yes, the analyst has legal authority to access content of individual phone calls/emails of anyone, on his own, without first getting a separate warrant.

These are consistent statements. The FISA law allows 72 hours after the fact to seek the warrant.

My understanding is that the analyst has legal access, on his own authority, once he has been verbally authorized by either the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence. I think the analyst only need fill out a form in order to take a peek at anything.

At least this is my current understanding of the law and the policy. These analysts, once verbally approved, might might be compared to the robosigners we found in the banking fraud.

There is one important difference; unlike the illegal robosigners for the banks, Congress, the Adminstration, and the Courts all seem to have made this process perfectly legal.

If you start to parse the Q&A information with this timeline in mind, it starts to reveal an amazing consistency. Many of the contradictory claims evaporate.

[Coccydynia]

43. You may be correct.

Let's see the request within 72 hours. Show the timelines for each request. The burden of proof is on the government.

It's easy to quash the lies and the misinformation with evidence.

[JDPriestly]

51. Actually, some of the documents indicate they can also take some

strictly domestic documents. It helps to actually read the court orders. Sometimes just reading some administration talking (or blogging) points and repeating them on DU destroys your credibility.

Just assuming the Obama PR department always knows what is going on or lets its bloggers know all of what it knows can be an embarrassing mistake.

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Oh, no, that can't be true. She's quoting Greenwald there, and

the fact that Greenwald said it automatically invalidates it.

[MisterP]

7. what, no "racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy"?

[Jackpine Radical]

22. Well, that's ACLU for you.

They defended the Nazis in Skokie, after all. And everyone knows that Nazis should have no civil liberties (unless, of course, they're members of the 1%).

[Harmony Blue]

9. Thank you ACLU

for all that you do.

[Catherina]

13. K&R for the ACLU! "far weaker than we imagined they could be" n/t

[marmar]

14. k/r

[frylock]

15. but it's leeeeeeegal!!1

[limpyhobbler]

16. "purely domestic". that means non-foreign calls. seems excessive. nt

[Solly Mack]

26. K&R

[kentuck]

29. Somebody's lying....

Who?

[Octafish]

40. Good question.

With secret government, it's extremely difficult to answer.

[Hissyspit]

31. Kick nt

[Rex]

38. Why does the ACLU hate us for our freedoms?

Why can't they be happy with a Surveillance State? Better yet, what are they hiding?

[nashville_brook]

47. +1

[WillyT]

42. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[blkmusclmachine]

45. We can hear you now.

[nashville_brook]

46. k and r

[KoKo]

50. Kick...Interesting Info...We Need to KNOW!