The Incredibly Interesting Story of the NSA's domestic spying program

[Sirotnikov]

monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties

So, uh, what is so wrong about that?

Assuming it is somehow monitored by a special court?

In Israel you have the Shabak who has authority to monitor phone calls of citizens (usually with proper authorization).

I guess the real problem is that it would be handled by the NSA rather than the police or FBI, but then you'd have no single organization to connect the dots between foreign operators and local operators.

Unless the FBI and the NSA can work together and give each other access to needed files, on a per-case basis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Assuming it is somehow monitored by a special court?

IIRC, that was the problem. The administration was supposed to go through a court, who would make the decision (and usually it was a rubber stamp), but decided they didn't have to.

[Pekka]

Right, and authorities can use wiretaps, it's just that you need permission first. It's a perfectly good system, there's absolutely no good reasons to not do it like this and it's all bunch of fearmongering that we need to do it like this.

[Sirotnikov]

i think that you could at least be able to retain 1 side of the conversation if you don't have permission for the other.

also, it can often occur that getting a court order can take time which will risk getting the intelligence you need.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
i think that you could at least be able to retain 1 side of the conversation if you don't have permission for the other.

also, it can often occur that getting a court order can take time which will risk getting the intelligence you need.

You should probably read up about the FISA act, because you've made a number of incorrect assumptions.

The problem was that the Bush administration was failing to go through the channels set up specifically for this type of surveillance. These are already extremely forgiving. For instance, you can retroactively apply for a warrant after 90 days of surveillance. Also, the standards of proof required to get a warrant are ridiculously low (IIRC the FISA court approves 99+% of requests). Yet even with these minimal restrictions, the Bush administration felt as though they shouldn't be constrained by any laws at all.

[Sirotnikov]

You should probably read up about the FISA act, because you've made a number of incorrect assumptions.

The problem was that the Bush administration was failing to go through the channels set up specifically for this type of surveillance. These are already extremely forgiving. For instance, you can retroactively apply for a warrant after 90 days of surveillance. Also, the standards of proof required to get a warrant are ridiculously low (IIRC the FISA court approves 99+% of requests). Yet even with these minimal restrictions, the Bush administration felt as though they shouldn't be constrained by any laws at all.

point granted.

from skimming, the "lone wolf" amendment is very important.

sometimes it may take a substantial amount of collection (for which a court warrant is needed) in order to establish a person as a) connected with foreign agents and b) planning terrorism.

contact with foreign agents can be more easily proven but it is rarely a crime, and often requires apriori warranty for the monitoring.

planning terrorism can be harder to prove, if your only proof is contact with foreign agents involved with terrorism, and even that is indirect (for instance - going to jihadist forums?)

in that case, often long term monitoring is needed before a suitable case is established for the sole reason of deciding whether the person is a real threat, or just a lonely guy reading up on stupid stuff.

god knows i've probably read lots of stuff online that can be misquoted to make me appear like a criminal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
For instance, you can retroactively apply for a warrant after 90 days of surveillance.

That's what the Admin wants. Right now, you have 72 hours. Still, it should be hard to come up with a valid reason to explain to a judge why you have probably cause to listen to an American's phone conversation within three days.

The reason we have these laws is that in the 40, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the FBI and CIA were spying on politically active Americans, usually without a warrant. The whole reason this law exists is to stop the government from doing exactly what it is trying to do. On top of that, the government is supposed to keep Congress informed as to what it is doing, and it has so far refused to do so.

It's a felony, and were there any justice, Bush and co would spend the rest of their natural lives behind bars. But there isn't, and they won't.

[Sirotnikov]

The reason we have these laws is that in the 40, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the FBI and CIA were spying on politically active Americans, usually without a warrant.

from what i read about project minaret, including the first portion of the senate hearing, the NSA usually replied directly to special orders sanctioned by the DOJ, and was very cautious about the stuff it gathered.

Regarding the logic of spying on politically active americans - I see it as very logical in attempt to filter out foreign insurgency and political influence methods, especially those employed by the Soviets (read the congress report on "Active Measures" and people of influence).

The logic would be to follow suspicious persons and prosecute those who are really foreign agents. Obviously information collected about people who prove to be innocent should be discarded.

[DaShi]

They can't reveal the information they have to congress. Who do you think they've been spying on?

[Dinner]

There was allegations of that during the 2004 elections.

[DaShi]

Well, I'd want to know if our elect representives were working with terrorists. would you?

[Jon Miller]

And also if they were involved in anything of questionable legality.

JM

[DaShi]

It is much easier than breaking into their party headquarters.

[Berzerker]

The logic would be to follow suspicious persons and prosecute those who are really foreign agents.

I dont know, its a religion I dislike this time but I sure wouldn't want people following me simply because my religion or ideology partially resembled some nutcase's views. Logical, perhaps, constitutional, well, what is unreasonable? Cops can literally blow down your door and "unintentionally" set fire to your home and thats called "reasonable" if they think you have pot, so I'm sure this would be ruled okay.

Obviously information collected about people who prove to be innocent should be discarded.

[Barnabas]

I dont like the gov listening to phone calls.
Lets imagine they discover Hillary Clinton likes phone sex, can we trust them that during the campaign they will not make it public somehow and ruin her chances?