General Discussion

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

2. Anyone can be "queried" solely on the basis of secret computer profiles that aren't subject to

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 11:51 AM

Jun 2013

review or challenge. Furthermore, the basis for an "articulable suspicion" is itself an automated profiling system based upon relationship maps that go at least "two hops" out from any record of contact with a foreign suspect. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/prism_two_hops_nsa_agents_are_trained_to_target_friends_of_friends_how_many.html Two hops means two degrees of separation. In Facebook terms, those are "Friends of Friends." For the average Facebook page user, that means that for each hit within the system the median number of people who will be run through the secondary profiling database, which is a "database of databases" containing everything from the 702 program records to your record of grocery shopping items, will be more than 30,000.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The NSA searches its mass database of phone records without real judicial oversight. [View all] dkf Jun 2013 OP

If this would be the rule then police would not be able to ask any questions of Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #1

You wish regular warrants were approved on this basis? Guidelines for the police to interpret? dkf Jun 2013 #3

I never said I would like for warrants to be issued everytime a query is made, but if you get this Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #4

It's search and seizure. That's how the 4th amendment works. dkf Jun 2013 #5

I am surprised you would really want this to happen, frivolous in the least. BTW, the Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #7

Why would the Internet go away? dkf Jun 2013 #8

You ask a lot of questions which should be simple but no more queries, no news, if Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #10

Well I have no idea why you think the Internet would be shut down. Weird. dkf Jun 2013 #17

Weird you don't undertstand. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #19

I'm baffled at why the internet would go away, too. dawg Jun 2013 #18

Would it be proper to say you are not in position to make the decision of what would suffice. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #23

No. dawg Jun 2013 #25

You do understand I'm not talking about a google search, right? dawg Jun 2013 #26

Why would you assume that? Phone company metadata does not include any of that. randome Jun 2013 #34

Well I'm not assuming it entirely. That's why I said "probably". dawg Jun 2013 #36

Now I gotta say, this is an interesting new talking point nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #20

I would appreciate it if you would stop calling everyone else's posts to be 'talking points'. randome Jun 2013 #29

What in the world does ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #30

Anyone can be "queried" solely on the basis of secret computer profiles that aren't subject to leveymg Jun 2013 #2

'Grocery items'? Where do you get that from? randome Jun 2013 #6

They are collecting directly off of the fiber optic cables. That's pure raw data. dkf Jun 2013 #9

How do you know? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #11

WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #13

How is it done? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #16

AP dkf Jun 2013 #24

i would not bother engaging with them if they will not even discuss the facts of the documents Monkie Jun 2013 #53

Just what I thought, just throw some words out and let the story continue. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #56

They copy the data from the fiber optic cables. dkf Jun 2013 #57

I do understand more than you know but you continue your talking point. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #58

You'd think Snowden would have mentioned this if it was true. randome Jun 2013 #12

WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #14

You know the article ProSense Jun 2013 #22

I'm not defending Bush. Am I supposed to be blaming him for the fact it still goes on? dkf Jun 2013 #54

Link? n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #55

This is what the EFF lawsuit is about...they have ATT records. dkf Jun 2013 #15

Bush era stuff. I agree, let the EFF lawsuit proceed. randome Jun 2013 #27

Snowden wasn't director of the NSA. dawg Jun 2013 #21

I don't think he had access to anything because he wasn't able to show any evidence. randome Jun 2013 #28

There is enough information out there now to be concerned about ... dawg Jun 2013 #31

He could easily have hurt the case he wanted to make. randome Jun 2013 #46

I think it's interesting how everyone else here but you cites multiple sources leveymg Jun 2013 #32

The link about Snowden's fake resume. randome Jun 2013 #33

That mischaracterizes things. I left my comment over at the other thread. leveymg Jun 2013 #37

It's looking like he also lied about working for the NSA before going to the CIA. randome Jun 2013 #42

According to the NSA, Snowden was the one ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #35

Note to Snowden debunkers: Alexander is not saying the documents are fake. leveymg Jun 2013 #38

No one is saying the warrant is a fake. randome Jun 2013 #41

Never said he was. eom leveymg Jun 2013 #52

I meant he didn't have access to private information. randome Jun 2013 #40

He knew because of the documents he found. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #43

I'm not disputing the validity of the Verizon warrant. randome Jun 2013 #44

I don't need to trust him to ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #47

I hear you. randome Jun 2013 #48

Not really - ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #49

They started their cases back in the Bush Era. randome Jun 2013 #51

and the aclu. allin99 Jun 2013 #45

Yes, them, too. n/t ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #50

K&R KoKo Jun 2013 #39