They see you when you’re sleeping, they know when you’re awake
Assuming this is true, I’ll also assume I’ll have more to say about it anon:
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”
But it’s more likely that Nadler misunderstood what the briefing was getting at (see the “update” here):
Here’s [Nadler’s] new statement to BuzzFeed:
“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”
Read the transcript of his exchange with Mueller to see where he erred. The NSA told him that they could get “specific information” about a suspicious phone number without a FISA warrant. Nadler somehow took that to mean that they could tap that phone number and listen in. As Kevin Drum and Julian Sanchez noted last night, though, “specific information” may simply have meant metadata and phone records for the number, not the actual contents of phone calls. To actually tap a line, they need FISA approval. That’s what Mueller was trying to tell him.
So as Emily Litella would say: “Never mind.”
But I think we should continue to mind, because if a vast apparatus with vast powers is assembled, there is every reason to believe it will be used, and that some day those who are just itching to abuse it will find a way to abuse it. And if that apparatus is secret, there would be all the more ability to do so under cover of that secrecy. It all rests on trust, and we have come to distrust our government more and more as time goes on.
On the other hand, all intelligence operations are secret. That’s their very nature. And so all are subject to abuse; that’s one of the most frightening things about them. And until the day comes when the lion lies down with the lamb (a day I can’t see ever coming) we need intelligence.
It’s a conundrum. But as I’ve said before, the advantages of this particular program don’t seem worth the dangers. Life contains dangers; enemies are out to get us. How much protection do we demand, how much liberty and privacy are we willing to give up to get it, and is that sacrifice even worth it because the protection we get is so imperfect and perhaps even inadequate?
In addition, banning these programs wouldn’t necessarily end them. What technology allows, people will probably find a way to accomplish, either legally through the NSA or illegally through some more clandestine means. Unless we all go off the grid simultaneously, I don’t see that electronic spying will ever stop (and even then, there probably would be other ways for people to get into our business). And I’m not just talking about the federal government, either.
An awfully lot of us are willing to give up privacy with regard to purchases and banking over the Internet, and mostly just for the sake of convenience or saving some money.
So I’d say even more are probably willing to sacrifice privacy in the hopes of being kept safe from a bomb at a shopping mall or museum, or a marathon finish line.
Didn’t the Holder DOJ go judge shopping with criminal warrants for Rosen? The fact that no one has been fired tells you everything you need to know about the ethics of the Obama admin. What’s to stop Obama from abusing this program? Another judge? I don’t trust any judge to understand the technology and make informed decisions. I don’t believe for a second that the NSA is just collecting ‘records’ and not content.
The IRS scandal shows what monsters the federal government workforce has become. Read “Clarice’s Pieces” in American Thinker today for another look at how the federal government is out of control.
Although most people I know are sleepwalkers, they are probably the last free generation in America.
Credit cards and amazon are not faceless government bureaucrats with the power to rewrite your existence.
If a person wants to give his credit card information on the basis of Amazon’s reputation or Ebay’s reputation, that’s one thing.
Trusting in the Leftist alliance for human utopia not to force people to obey, is quite another.
They have, for all intents and purposes, essentially criminalized American citizenship, (unfortunately underscoring “American,” inasmuch as any other, especially Mexican or muslim, is given an automatic free pass) treating everyone in the way that was reserved for criminals just a few short years ago.
With but a few years of this slightly subliminal conditioning, the police state of America will be a reality. I guess the good news is they won’t have to ask for “papers” since they’ll already have them.
Amazing how Santa Claus is an anagram of “NSA as a cult”.
Neo:
They see you when you’re sleeping, they know when you’re awake
This would appear to be more true if you a a Fox News reporter than if you are a Jihadist.
“As Kevin Drum and Julian Sanchez noted last night, though, “specific information” may simply have meant metadata and phone records for the number, not the actual contents of phone calls.”
Whoa, back the truck up a minute. Last I checked use of the word “may” includes the opposite possibility. Which means that Nadler may have understood perfectly well.
As for his retraction; Nadler being a New York Democrat (he has a Progressive voting record in the House) would, based on prior experience, indicate his ability to be amenable to ‘correction’ after inadvertently exposing the administration and democrats to negative repercussions.
James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that… the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”
The entire argument that the NSA needs a FISA warrant to listen in to phone calls rests upon the premise that the NSA wouldn’t break the law…and the administration’s assurances that they understand the law.
The inimitable Mark Steyn weighs in on the likelihood of administration agencies breaking the law; “you have to have a touchingly naé¯ve view of government to believe that the 99.9999 percent of “metadata” entirely irrelevant to terrorism will not be put to some use, sooner or later.”
Count on it, it will be sooner rather than later.
In fact there’s a lot of indications that it’s been happening for quite some time. Consider the following:
In an interview with the black-oriented TV One, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., known for opening her mouth before engaging her limited intellectual faculties, inadvertantly let slip that while the Obama era might be ending in 2016, his legacy would carry on in the form of “an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life.”
“I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.” “He’s been very smart, I mean it’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” Congresswoman Maxine Waters
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them”. — Patrick Henry
The circumstantial evidence in support of the contention that Orwell’s “Big Brother” is being created by our Government is now well beyond the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard.
ATF seeks massive database of personal info: ‘Assets, Relatives, Associates and more’
Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform
“NSA revelations only ‘the tip of the iceberg,’ says Dem lawmaker”
“Whistleblower’s NSA warning: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’”
“NSA surveillance played little role in foiling terror plots, experts say”
So much for the protests by the administration and its congressional supporters that these programs are vital to our National Security.
“Now FBI wants back door to all software”
“NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others”
Having personal experience with the community that deals with classified information and programs, it is not uncommon that some people use the system to manipulate outcomes and use the entire system for their own benefit and protection.
Those running government surveillance programs are only human, some use whatever means that they can to further their own agendas. Especially when they can hide behind the veil of limited access.
The public should not be surprised that they have absolutely no privacy in today’s world. Big Brother arrived a long time ago. Everyone should act accordingly.
Snowden apparently has thousands of documents that have yet to be released. I wonder if this will turn into something like the climategate email dump.
Neo: “It’s a conundrum. But as I’ve said before, the advantages of this particular program don’t seem worth the dangers.”
You bring up an aspect of this discussion that has been mentioned but not emphasized. From a standpoint of national security and combating terrorism, are we using all other means of intelligence that are less intrusive to the general American population?
The NSA surveillance may be attributed in part to the lack of alternative tools allowed. For example, we’ve pointed out that profiling isn’t allowed. The Obama administration apparently has also shifted away from human intelligence, eg, capture and interrogation, which would also raise the emphasis on electronic intelligence.
Challenging the government contention that the NSA surveillance is necessary for national security should include questioning the government whether less intrusive, but perhaps politically controversial and even currently illegal intelligence gathering means should be increased in order to decrease dragnet intelligence tactics.