Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and they are just talking about checks and balances on that.
They are talking about access to those records via court approval. The court lays out the standards that allow them to make a query on an individual's telecommunications data.
Guess you didn't see a copy of that Verizon court order.
That had no individual listed. That included 121,000,000 phone records sent to Uncle Sam every day for 90 days.
33% of all Americans got swept up with one single court order.
Guess you didn't see a copy of that Verizon court order.
That had no individual listed. That included 121,000,000 phone records sent to Uncle Sam every day for 90 days.
33% of all Americans got swept up with one single court order.
I think what they are saying is that they collect the metadata, but only look at it if they have identified an individual of interest. Then they go back and query that data. They can only do this after obtaining a court order. I think that's what they are saying.
I think what they are saying is that they collect the metadata, but only look at it if they have identified an individual of interest. Then they go back and query that data. They can only do this after obtaining a court order. I think that's what they are saying.
And you believe them ?
A mere 3 months ago Clapper told Congress the NSA was not collect data on Americans.
The General of the Cyber Command, the head guy of internet spying said 14 times last year that they were not collecting data on Americans.
Now that we find out they ARE collecting data on Americans they have turned it into "But we're not reading the file".
Oh really ? Then why do you have state of the art software that parses and tags each bit of data and can reconstruct in near real time and show on a global map ?
Congresswoman Sewell is asking how a low-level analyst was able to go rogue. Given that there are over 1000 of these analysts.
Same way Manning went rogue.
Too big to manage.
Think about it.
In a small company one cannot get away with anything.
But in a big multi-national corporation with hundreds of millions, one could exist for 20 years and do nothing and never get caught.
Nearly 1 million people have Top Secret clearance.
The bigger the entity is the easier it is to get away with stuff.
A mere 3 months ago Clapper told Congress the NSA was not collect data on Americans.
The General of the Cyber Command, the head guy of internet spying said 14 times last year that they were not collecting data on Americans.
Now that we find out they ARE collecting data on Americans they have turned it into "But we're not reading the file".
Oh really ? Then why do you have state of the art software that parses and tags each bit of data and can reconstruct in near real time and show on a global map ?
Why don't you go listen to it and then make your judgment.
Stick to warrants because that requires probable cause.
It's the blanket court orders that you want to hear about.
The devices installed at telecomm locations syphoning from the internet backbone you want to hear about.
The hearings will uncover NOTHING and won't differentiate warranted searches from mass data grabbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
I think you would find the hearings very interesting. You can listen to them and still be on CD
Actually, that is indeed possible. Real time and past tense. LOL
No, the MSM articles get me upset enough.
If you are not computer savvy then you won't see the lies and disinformation they are giving out.
I stopped reading.
Warrants and court orders are two different beasts.
Internet providers don't' own the internet, the telecoms do.
No one is talking about Narus and splitters and internet backbone and PRISM.
It's all fluffy..foreign terrorists, child abductions, consumer fraud, etc.
Total unadulterated BS being fed to the masses that don't know any different.
Yep, they alluded to "pre-crime" also and their "100% auditable system". "No changes necessary, it's all good." "We need more tools".
Now they are focusing on the so-called "traitor" and indicating this is what the discussion should be about.
2) do they monitor dissidents and people who do not agree with the government? I know they have focused on Occupy Wall St protesters, and I would not call them terrorists or a risk to homeland security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
