I have gone through the Snowden slides about as well as anyone could...

[jmowreader]

I conclude that everyone screaming about "illegal spying" is totally wrong.

Truly understanding what they're doing demands that you know a little about communications. Every electrical communication ever made has two elements. Signals intelligence personnel, or SIGINTers, call them "externals" and "internals."

Externals are things surrounding the communication. If it was a call by radio, the frequency, direction from you to the emitter (or emitters, in the case of a two-way radio link) and time of transmission would be among the externals. For phone calls, the phone numbers at either end, time of the call and the route the call took.

Internals are the contents of the call.

The NSA program looks at the externals of every telephone call that goes through communications circuits in the United States. It takes phone company logs and feeds them into a computer, which compares each phone call against a list of, IIRC, five hundred phone numbers from around the world that are known to belong to terrorists or people who actively aid and abet them. If someone was talking to one of those five hundred numbers, data about the call is presented to an analyst for further action. If a call was not to one of those numbers, the system just moves to the next one.

At this point you need to read United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which is at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/07-01.htm. Turn to numbered page 7 (which is quite a ways in), and look at 5.4.

5.4. Nonforeign Communications
a. Communications between persons in the United States. Private radio communications solely between persons in the United States inadvertently intercepted during the collection of foreign communications will be promptly destroyed unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
b. Communications between U.S. persons. Communications solely between U.S. persons will be treated as follows:
1) Communications solely between U.S. persons inadvertently intercepted during the collection of foreign communications will be destroyed upon recognition, if technically possible, except as provided in paragraph 5.4d below.
2) Notwithstanding the preceding provision, cryptologic data (e.g., signal and encipherment information) and technical communications data (e.g. circuit usage) may be extracted and retained from those communications if necessary to:
a) establish or maintain intercept, or
b) minimize unwanted intercept, or
c) support cryptologic information related to foreign communications.
c. Communications involving an officer or employee of the U.S. government. Communications to or from...will not be intentionally intercepted... (this one I'm shortening up quite a bit because it's not of interest to us at this time, and if you really want to read it, it's there at the link I gave above.)
d. Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 5.4.b and c, the DIRNSA/CHCSS (director of NSA/chief of Central Security Service) may waive the destruction requirement for international communications containing, inter alia, the following types of information:
1) significant foreign intelligence, or
2) evidence of a crime or threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person, or
3) anomalies that reveal a potential vulnerability to U.S. communications security. Communications for which the Attorney General or DIRNSA/CHCSS's waiver is sought should be forwarded to NSA/CSS, Attn: P02.

Processing and retaining all the phone-log data is very clearly within the powers granted by this section - specifically, retention to support cryptologic information related to foreign communications. And this USSID has been crawled through, repeatedly, by Justice Departments of both Republican and Democratic administrations, to ensure that it protects the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

You might point to the huge Agency data center being built in Utah. Before you start going "woo, woo, that huge building means they're recording all our phone calls," look at the size of the task before them. This isn't East Germany or socialist Poland, where you couldn't get a phone until someone in town who had one died because the frame at the dial central office was full four dictators ago. This is America, where five minutes and twenty bucks will put a prepaid cell in your pocket - and of that five minutes, four of them are spent opening the clamshell it came in. Americans make roughly three billion phone calls per day - ten calls per every man, woman and child who claims U.S. citizenship. Because the US has the communications backbone that it does, at least that many calls that neither originate nor terminate at a phone in the US pass through our network...so let's do this easy and say five billion calls per day are found on our wires. Each phone call has at least two phone numbers associated with it. If you do the math, you will find that the Agency must make 58 million comparisons between their terrorist database and the phone logs...every second. That doesn't count going back through the logs if they accidentally manage to find one to determine all the other people he called today. That's the simplest, quickiest sweep they can possibly do, and they have to do it 3600 times per hour, and 24 hours of the day. (Per day? Over 5 quadrillion comparisons are made.) Dude, you ain't gonna do five quadrillion anything on a laptop.

Snowden? I don't know. Maybe (probably? He's had jobs he had to bullshit his way into, and lying on a government employment application will get you a room next to Bernie Madoff) blackmail, possibly money - embarrassing the US this bad has to be worth large stacks of nonsequential twenties to someone - or, possibly, he could have always dreamed of just fucking the government worse than they've ever been fucked before. Greenwald is just a prat.

I better look at Mr. Clapper and his "the government isn't collecting on Americans." You must never, ever, ask a government official a question that has a narrowly-defined answer if you don't want the answer you're going to get. In the weird language SIGINTers speak, "collection" requires recording internals and retaining the recordings. (Think of the Monica Lewinsky thing, when the repukes were going apeshit over Clinton saying he hadn't had "sexual relations" with her. Turns out "sexual relations" requires acts be performed that Clinton didn't perform.) This isn't happening, at least not in the program detailed in those slides.

[randome]

1. Wow. Very thorough.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

35. And what is the conclusion you came to after reading all of this and then comparing it

to what the President told us? Are you, eg, still claiming that we do not own our phone records? You applauded this you must have understood it, right? And it must have changed your mind about your previous defenses of these surveillances, no?

[Maedhros]

37. Yes. And other people with experience in and knowledge of security agencies

have gone through it all and concluded the opposite.

To whose argument should I give more weight? Bona fide former CIA/NSA professionals, or some guy on the Internet?

[truedelphi]

72. I know which people I care to listen to.

When former NSA professionals state that our very phone conversations can be reconstituted, word for word, should the need ever arise, I start feeling the hairs on the back of my neck rise.
Especially given that being against Monsanto, being against fracking, nuke power and Keystone Pipeline greatly increases my chances of being labelled a "terrorist,."

Of course there is nothing at all wrong with me that a few months or years or decades at a re-education camp wouldn't cure!

[HardTimes99]

75. The NSA merely awaits the inauguration of President Santorum and Vice President Cruz on January 20,

2017 to pick you up for your re-education.

JK! Mostly

I went to a walk-in health clinic today and the receptionist asked for a copy of my Driver's License. "Only if you promise not to give it to the NSA," I responded. She did a double-take. Then I said, "Oh, who am I kidding? They already have me in their gunsights, so one more piece of data ain't going to make that much difference." She looked relieved when I complied with her request.

[reusrename]

79. How do you get past the fact that the OP has no comprehension of numbers or arithmatic?

I honestly don't think the OP has a clue of what a yottabyte is. I didn't know myself until a couple weeks ago.

The slides show exactly what Snowden has always claimed. They support his story, even though some can't seem to follow it all.

The main problem folks are having is with the order of things.

FISA warrants don't have to be sought untimely 72 hours after the emails are read or the phone calls are listened to.

And yes, they record all digital content.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I believe they are collecting internals.

I believe that they are looking unabashedly at externals but are also collecting and saving internals, the content of our calls and emails, etc.

It would explain the construction of so many large data centers. Collection of only the externals wouldn't, I think, require such capacity.

I don't trust them, I'll assume the worst and err on the side of caution.

[Vietnameravet]

6. Caution??...you mean less efforts to stop a terrorist attack?

[NYC_SKP]

12. Privacy > Security

There are other ways to catch and stop terrorists.

And, if fact, if we'd been better world citizens we wouldn't have been attacked in the first place.

.

[Cleita]

24. +1000

[truebluegreen]

36. +2

[sabrina 1]

39. And can you explain how this would stop a terrorist attack? It didn't stop the Boston

Bombers, did it?

[NYC_SKP]

56. I don't believe for a minute that it was ever about terrorists.

When you think back to the dirty tricks played by J. Edgar, I am convinced it has more to do with political power.

And, more recently, to do with the power of information and it's use for corporate interests.

Google and Facebook are free, yet they make their owners millions of dollars just for the data they're able to collect from our use of them.

[davidpdx]

82. I love how you are so quick to invoke Boston bombings

as failing to stop a terrorist attack. The two brothers were lone wolves who never discussed it over the phone or via email. Utterly disgusting...

[sabrina 1]

83. Of course they didn't, unless they were stupid. That is the point, isn't it? They are spying

on people who are not terrorists, knowing that terrorists KNOW not to use the phone, or email to plan their crimes.

Thanks for making my point. That is why this is so utterly ridiculous and is not intended to 'catch terrorists' because the NSA knows what you just said.

So now can we stop the nonsense and start doing what we elected Democrats to do, (thank you Sens Wyden and Udall and Conyers) end these grotesque Bush policies and start passing some laws to stop these abuses of power as we demanded while Bush was in office.

[davidpdx]

84. My point is that was one case

How many have been stopped? The answer is we don't know for sure.

BTW Wyden and Merkley are both my senators. Wyden has led the charge on the NSA stuff and Merkley pushed on filibuster reform. I am proud of both of them.

[sabrina 1]

85. Yes, they have both been great on this. Wyden has long tried to warn the people

about these abuses, stating that 'if the American people knew how they are abusing the law, they would be very angry'.

We SHOULD know how many terrorist attacks have been stopped. We knew when Clinton was President and he stopped some that would have even been worse than 9/11, the old fashioned way, using methods that work and without spying on an entire population.

I agree with wyden on this.

[Scootaloo]

57. Invoking the "terrorists" ought to be a corrolary of Godwin's Law at this point n/t

[jmowreader]

16. Okay, how are they getting ALL the internals?

Communications flow by the cheapest route. If you in New York City call your friend in Syracuse, the cheapest route is not through either Maryland or Utah. Nor does the phone company really have a reason to send every call you make through the whole network. (Yes, the Agency could ask them to do it, but if it's going to cost them money - and building the infrastructure needed to flow every phone call two thousand miles out of its way would cost SERIOUS money - the telcos would gleefully tell the Agency to go fuck themselves. They're only getting the cooperation they are because providing the logs costs next to nothing.)

[NYC_SKP]

18. When this old story first broke in 2006, I was an SBC customer. SBC bought AT&T....

And in a utility cabinet, room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco, a room with tons of cable, AT&T was employing a "splitter" which basically intercepted and funneled off a stream of data presumably duplicating all the original data, which continued on it's way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Are they getting it ALL? I doubt it, and I didn't mean to suggest that, but it's within their technological capacity to.

[On the Road]

76. The Question of *How* Doesn't Appear to be Relevant

The key issue is *trust*. If someone feels that the NSA is not to be trusted, why then of course they are collecting the data. No matter whether that is even possible. Or that any VoIP service from Vonage to calling cards to Fois Digital Voice does not even travel in a single stream, but is split into packets and reassembled.

[NoMoreWarNow]

61. I agree-- my feelings exactly

[klook]

69. I agree.

The amount of data storage needed to keep even billions of plain text metadata files would be minimal compared to the yottabytes of storage that the NSA's Utah facility will be handling.

What Is the NSA Doing With All Those Phone Records?
—By Kevin Drum
Mother Jones, Thu Jun. 6, 2013

How much data is this, anyway? How does it get to the NSA each day? Well, if you figure there are roughly 4 billion phone calls per day, and about 100 bytes of metadata per call, that's 4 terabits of data. The big carriers are responsible for maybe a quarter of that each, or 1 terabit per day. A single DS3 line can carry about 4 terabits per day, and a DS3 line is nothing special. In other words, the actual physical transmission of this data is no big deal.

The database that holds all this stuff, on the other hand, is a whole different story.....
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/what-nsa-doing-all-those-phone-records

1 yottabyte of storage = 1 trillion terabytes.
4 terabits = 1/2 a terabyte.

So...Just 1 yottabyte of telephone metadata is 2 trillion days worth, and we've been told that the NSA's Utah facility can handle yottabytes, plural.

OK, toss in email metadata and web surfing metadata. Let's say that totals 20 terabits of data a day. That's still many, many days worth of data -- like billions of days (I'm doing this in my head, so that's an approximation -- so maybe somebody less lazy or tired than I will do the math).

This tells me there's a lot more than these plain-text metadata files being collected.

[reusrename]

80. Don't need to do no cipherin.'

I just know that the interwebs have way too many tubes to listen to all of them.

[The Straight Story]

3. Well then, since it does not violate the consititution, they can share all that data with us

Hell, it would be a popular site which they could use to make some money off of (via ads).

Punch in a number, see who all someone called.

I mean, we pay a ton of money for this (I think the electric bill for their data center was 40 million a year), it is not protected by the constitution, and since we give many of these companies tax breaks we are, in a way, paying them.

I get the feeling though, if you or I was doing this, the government would have a problem with it then.

[jberryhill]

58. Would you apply that to IRS data?

The IRS collects a heck of a lot of data too. That doesn't mean it is made available to everyone.

[The Straight Story]

64. If the nsa has access to it, sure. Hmm are they using IRS data as well and is that legal?

Have to find out more on that...

[reusrename]

81. This is what I would like to see. Honestly.

It would pretty much end organized crime overnight. We'd finally know at whom to aim our pitchforks.

[Vietnameravet]

4. Some dont want to hear this

They prefer to prattle on claiming their rights have been taken away and tyranny is at hand!!!.....and if only we would stop spying how much everyone would admire and respect us!

Just like the NRA that insists background checks on gun purchases are a great infringement on their liberties and a sure sign of tyranny...

[sabrina 1]

43. Hear what? They are tracking the phone data of American citizens. What about this

changes that, and how is this supposed to 'catch terrorists'? Obviously it doesn't, because they did not catch the Boston Bombers. So what are you seeing here that makes anything we already knew, different/

[Harmony Blue]

5. This is what is happening...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

13. Excellent Video

Thanks for sharing

[Harmony Blue]

14. You are welcome!

Apparently the ACLU is no longer credible when it comes to understanding civil liberties conflicts....well according to some on DU.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. No harm, no foul? Then why are they pursuing him for divulging "secrets"?

And, if you know what they're doing, and how they're doing it, why aren't you on the run or under indictment?

[KittyWampus]

11. he stole documents. he gave information to foreign countries. he admits it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. But, according to the OP it was harmless.

If that's the case, why the pursuit? If what the NSA is doing is all aboveboard and legal, why the secrecy? If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it?

[KittyWampus]

21. When you steal something you are committing a crime. It's really that simple.

[sabrina 1]

50. When you lie a country into war, it is a major crime. But we don't prosecute criminals

in this country. When you cheat and engage in massive corruption to the point of collapsing the world economies, you have committed crimes of massive proportions, but we don't prosecute criminals in this country, we bail them out.

If you steal something that is worthless, it's a misdemeanor but we don't prosecute major crimes in this country so why would we prosecute someone for a misdemeanor?

Either they are doing something so wrong they have to hide it and silence anyone who is willing to expose them, OR everything they are doing is completely above board and they have nothing to worry about.

You can't have it both ways.

[KittyWampus]

60. that is changing the subject. The subject was one person who stole documents from the NSA.

[sabrina 1]

66. The subject is crime. Stealing is a crime, it has degrees, like murder, murder has degrees.

Petty theft is a misdemeanor and generally results in probation and restoration for a first time offender.

Bank robbery is a much more serious crime and generally results in jail time.

Armed robbery is even more serious.

But the biggest theft of all, Wall St. theft that nearly destroyed this entire country and others, is NOT a crime. Does that make sense?

Snowden's actions we are told were nothing more than petty theft. He should get probation.

Wall St's actions were crimes of massive proportions for which many of them should have received long prison sentences.

But Snowden's charges could land him behind bars for most of his life.

And Wall St criminals face no charges and were even rewarded for their crimes.

The subject is very relevant as we try to figure out what has gone so terribly wrong in this country when this kind of lob-sided 'justice' has become the norm.

[truedelphi]

86. Silly rabbit. Proecution is only for matters committed by mere

Individuals, not for Major Players.

Destroy an economy and make a heist of the middle class' wealth, putting it solidly in the coffers of the Upper One Percent, and it guarantees a lifetime of ease.


Lie a nation into warring against people who never hurt this nation, and there is no punishment.

But help inform your fellow citizens of the massive surveillance state being assembled against the individual, and you will be a pariah.

[jmowreader]

22. The NSA hides the key to the washroom. They hide EVERYTHING.

There are very good reasons to hide everything. If you look through the NSA Historical Monographs you might find reference to Black Friday. This was back in the 1950s - and no I wasn't on rack then, I wasn't even born until 1963. The Soviets had bought themselves a spy inside the Armed Forces Security Agency, the predecessor to NSA, and had learned everything about how their comms were being intercepted. So, on one day, the Soviets changed every single thing about the way their government communicated. They even changed the RADIOS! At 8:59 am or whatever it was, everyone was talking merrily away, not saying anything about the impending changeover...and at 9:00 am, total silence. (My guess is the Soviets must have built new communications centers inside existing buildings without telling any of the operators in the old ones, and at the appointed time KGB officers just unscrewed the fuses on the old centers because this happened with no warning at all.)

Seriously? I'm more worried about video surveillance on the streets, license plate scanners in cop cars, and a prison system that makes money every time it throws someone's ass in jail than I am about someone looking at my phone records. (My own phone records would be a good thing for them to have; read them and you'll never need sleeping pills.)

[giftedgirl77]

8. I went so far as to lay out how FISA

works & the laws that govern it in a post a couple of weeks ago to include how the FISA Court & the FISA court of appeals has been established & operates. I even included the links to alllll of the websites, it was simply facts & no opinion. It got me called stupid by one poster & another one baited me into a bs debate about a certain "journalist" that will remain nameless.

The bottom line is I give you a K&R & hope you the best with this post because at this point ppl have lost their damn minds.

[frylock]

19. the FISA court loaded with conservative judges as appointed by justice roberts?

that FISA court? and you trust them because...?

[giftedgirl77]

23. What I said is the program is a lot

more transparent than ppl are making it seem. One can pull up the reports to Congress for years showing how many requests were made, how many were granted & what they were for. Not to mention the protocol for how the courts operate.

It's all about enlightenment & knowledge rather than just taking a reporter & a disgruntled citizen at their word.

It's still a shitty system but to pretend all we can know about comes from two ppl with an agenda is just silly.

[frylock]

25. so what's this agenda that you speak of?

[giftedgirl77]

31. Everyone has an agenda in case you haven't

noticed. It is human nature, I know I'm probably being baited but what the hell.

GG has for many years now been working to divide the democratic party much in the same way the Tea Party has done to the GOP. The purpose is to drive ppl to a 3d party such as the libertarians or at best to the rethug side. He has spoken to Paulbots on the issue prior to the last election cycle.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

As far as Snowden well he is a libertarian which explains what drew him to GG in the first place. If his intentions were what he said initially then that would be debatable. Now it appears that it is moreinline to destroy any credibility we may have had with foreign govs & wreck our foreign policy (which already sucked) to the greatest extent possible. We all know how much Libertarians love foreign policy.

Everything I have posted regarding this issue has been fact based until the Snowden piece but to assume anyone would do this out the kindness of their heart is nieve.

[frylock]

63. yeh see i'm not buying into that bullshit..

if you want to be frightened at the thought of libertarians under your bed, that's not my concern.

[giftedgirl77]

68. I'm not trying to sell you anything

you responded to my post remember? I'm not scared of libertarians hiding under my bed but I damn sure don't want them in charge of the government.

[truebluegreen]

32. So you would rather take the other people with an agenda at their word?

Since you can look up the requests, and requests granted and what they were for, can you tell us how many were turned down?

The FISA court, like a grand jury, only hears one side of a case. And grand juries, as the saying goes, will indict a ham sandwich. There's your "oversight".

[giftedgirl77]

38. Like I said previously & linked to

you can look up a great deal of information on the courts to include all of their annual reports to Congress.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept

You don't have to like it & I never said it was perfect but there is a lot more info than ppl think.

[truebluegreen]

45. I get that. How many requests were turned down?

[giftedgirl77]

71. Just for the point blank FISA requests

according to the 2012 report which is at the link I gave you none were turned down. However, 40 of the requests had to be modified by the courts (which isn't unusual when it comes to warrants) prior to approval. It is also a moot point since FISA doesn't cover US citizens within the US or abroad.

For the FBI the request was made over 15,000 requests that involved 6,223 US persons. These requests were for more than just the metadata.

The whole how many were turned down meme is getting really tiresome. Nobody in their right mind is going to try & get a warrant without their ducks in a row. If the court doesn't find the warrant to be within scope they modify accordingly. Apparently it is easier to stick to one talking point than to try & research it for yourself.

[truebluegreen]

87. Spoken like a prosecutor.

None of them ever go on fishing expeditions, no sir.

Out of curiosity and since you like research so much, how many warrants were for terrorists, how many for drugs, how many for, say, bank fraud or tax evasion? How many resulted in prosecutions of terrorists, drug dealers, banksters, etc? How useful was all of this fishing to our society?

The crimes a secret court pursues, out of the public eye, tell us a lot about where their priorities are, don't they?

[truebluegreen]

29. The FISA court that is refusing all FOIA requests

because everything is "properly-classified?"

I don't really care how the FISA court or the PATRIOT Act is defined in the law, I care about how they are interpreted (which is a secret) and actually applied.

[HipChick]

9. Bump,Kick and Rec..many folks on DU just seem to want to buy into the Hyperbole..

[Scurrilous]

10. Great post.

Very thorough.

K & R

[jazzimov]

17. Thank you for using logic and facts.

K&R.
:kick:

[BenzoDia]

20. Thoughtful post. K&R

[cantbeserious]

26. The Young Turks And The New York Times Would Disagree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017129956

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Op-Ed Contributors
The Criminal N.S.A.
By JENNIFER STISA GRANICK and CHRISTOPHER JON SPRIGMAN
Published: June 27, 2013

Snip ...

The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. There is simply no precedent under the Constitution for the government’s seizing such vast amounts of revealing data on innocent Americans’ communications.

The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties.

This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.

We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.

[RC]

67. +100

Why the misplaced trust in our government, especially with all the war crimes still going on, Geneva Convention violations still going on, Human Rights violations still going on, the continuation of most, if not all the bu$h administration policies, the many Republicans Obama has appointed to his Administration, to say nothing about those left in place from the last administration. The abrupt change of Obama's rhetoric immediately after he was sworn in as President. The secrecy, the known lying by our government, the well known corruption and there are people that still excuse the excesses of the NSA as somehow aboveboard? Even some of the wing-nut Republicans are starting to wake up, so why is DU so full of NSA excusers? Many new the last few months.
There has to be money or favors being exchanged here, that's all I can think of, because facts and logic does not cover the support.

[flamingdem]

27. Great post, great info

Thank you for taking the time!

[railsback]

28. Its all been a weird, wet fantasy

which is kinda sick in a perverted way.

[A Simple Game]

30. I don't think when people say it is illegal they actually mean illegal. I think they mean

that it is unconstitutional. We all know they passed a law permitting it. It was illegal under most of Bush's term, they passed a law, now it is legal. Why was it illegal before? Do you think it is constitutional, then or now? I have asked the constitutional question about 5 times, if you answer you will be the first. No one wants to answer the question. Do you know why?

[99th_Monkey]

77. I quite agree "legal" v. constitutional

two VERY different things, unfortunately.

The only way outa here is to start calling things what they actually ARE.

[dawg]

33. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Of course they have concocted a legal justification for their spying. That is a given. Remember how George W. Bush got John Yoo to write-up a legal justification for torture? And the Jim Crow laws were legal too. (And it looks like they might be legal once again.)

Because some obscure subsection of some statue can be strained so as to mean what they want it to mean does not make it right.

We know the difference between the metadata and the content already. You aren't enlightening anyone with your explanation.

We simply disagree with your conclusions regarding the Constitutionality of blanket surveillance of all Americans, even if only at the metadata level. We have seen the legal underpinnings they are using to support this and we have the same respect for them that we had for John Yoo's defense of "enhanced interrogation".

We think that it is dangerous for the NSA to maintain a database of metadata on all citizens. No one has yet accused the President of abusing this data, but apparently lots of people have access to it. And Obama will not always be President.

We want this policy changed.

We don't accept that it is legal under the Fourth Amendment, and we believe that any and all of the court cases and statues being used to justify this invasion of privacy are invalid because they conflict with the plain meaning of the amendment.

What we don't understand is why so many of our fellow DU'ers are so eager to support NSA blanket surveillance. Would you really be making the same argument if Jeb Bush were President?

Search your heart.

Would you really be defending these policies under President Bush?

Be honest.
(Or at least be honest to yourself.)

[ProSense]

40. Actually,

"Of course they have concocted a legal justification for their spying. That is a given."

...you're making the OP's point. The fact that the OP demonstrates that the leaked information shows nothing illegal, and you're saying, "Of course they have concocted a legal justification for their spying. That is a given," indicates agreement that the slides show nothing illegal.

[dawg]

44. Bullshit!

A law that conflicts with a higher law is invalid. It is the opinion of many of us that these programs do exactly that.

But I guess you love the Patriot Act.

I am waiting for your apology to President Bush for not being more supportive of *his* efforts along these lines.

[ProSense]

51. Yelling "bullshit" doesn't change what you just said. n/t

[dawg]

52. Do you like the Patriot Act, ProSense?

How about separate but equal. That was the "law" of the land back in the day, too.

How about the ban on gay marriage here in Georgia. Are you gonna lecture me because "that's the law".

I'm not trying to change what I said. What I said does nothing to prove the OP's point, and only someone pretty dense would think it did. You aren't that dense, you're just trying to respond.

Of course they have a rationale that they say proves they are legal, and that is all the, rather longish, OP talks about. But that neither makes it right nor does it make it Constitutional.

Why the love for surveillance? Do you seriously think you are defending the President?

YOU AREN'T

You are making him look much much more culpable with your lame attempts at misdirection.

[totodeinhere]

53. No it's only because this is happening under Obama that makes it OK. Bush could never get away with

it. I swear, if the Jim Crow laws still existed they would be defending them because Obama is in the White House. But the fact is that just because the people who control this country pass a law to try to justify this doesn't make it right or moral.

[cantbeserious]

47. The Young Turks Spell Out How Even The Patriot Act Author Sees PRISM As Illegal - Among Others

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017129956

[dawg]

48. You do understand that we aren't trying to build an impeachment case.

We just want to change this terrible, terrible policy.

[forestpath]

41. [phone]

[Maedhros]

34. If the NSA surveillance program does not harvest information illegally

then why are FOIA requests for collected information on and from law abiding citizens being categorically denied? Why can't they say "yes" or "no" to the question: have you collected information on me?

[macspanicattack]

42. Thanks for an informed and logical post.

Unfortunately, it wont go over too well here these days. Too many members of the Snowden fan club getting finger sprains from hitting the ignore and abuse buttons too much. Emotions and distrust over logic and facts. I'm just waiting to see Snowden 'Magically' show up in Bolivia with no record of coming in on a flight. Will speak volumes. Thank you again for your well researched post.

[Thinkingabout]

46. K & R, great post, some heavy information, don't know if it will halt the paranoia but I agree with

Your research. A true analyst is not interested in Mary and John's conversation, this is not what a good analyst is trying to fine. To all the doubters, this is a good post to wrap your mind around.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. actually Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have written on this subject

The NSA's metastasised intelligence-industrial complex is ripe for abuse

Where oversight and accountability have failed, Snowden's leaks have opened up a vital public debate on our rights and privacy

by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 June 2013 13.00 BST


Let's be absolutely clear about the news that the NSA collects massive amounts of information on US citizens – from emails, to telephone calls, to videos, under the Prism program and other Fisa court orders: this story has nothing to do with Edward Snowden. As interesting as his flight to Hong Kong might be, the pole-dancing girlfriend, and interviews from undisclosed locations, his fate is just a sideshow to the essential issues of national security versus constitutional guarantees of privacy, which his disclosures have surfaced in sharp relief.

Snowden will be hunted relentlessly and, when finally found, with glee, brought back to the US in handcuffs and severely punished. (If Private Bradley Manning's obscene conditions while incarcerated are any indication, it won't be pleasant for Snowden either, even while awaiting trial.) Snowden has already been the object of scorn and derision from the Washington establishment and mainstream media, but, once again, the focus is misplaced on the transiently shiny object. The relevant issue should be: what exactly is the US government doing in the people's name to "keep us safe" from terrorists?

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming? - Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse

[truedelphi]

74. Thank you. Such statements might very well fall into that Orwellian

Mind realm of: "The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

Lord only knows that Valerie Plame played a role and suffered major consequences in the last security breach. And it was a crime, that involved loss of life at CIA stations. But Obama didn't care about that breach of security enough to bring Cheney to justice.

After all, it didn't embarrass him or any other Democratic leaders, so what difference did it make.

[sagat]

54. Excellent post.

[NoMoreWarNow]

55. all I know is this data collection is not about terrorism-- that's a bogus excuse

there's way too much info to practically sort out the bad guys from it all. Plus, there is no real terrorist threat. Almost all terror plots have been FBI sting operations or total lame-asses, who were caught easily, or people like the Tsarnaevs that the FBI or CIA should have known about.

The point isn't about technically legality. Is this program really about terrorism? Or is it a massive boondoggle that is wasting our money? I don't trust the NSA one tiny bit.

[NoMoreWarNow]

59. also-- it is incredibly naive to think that the NSA isn't abusing this data collection system

-- the system is overly ripe for abuse. It's also naive to think they are only collecting connection info.

[UTUSN]

62. R#30 & K for, I don't understand the technical stuff, so my reactions are focused on

the broad outlines transmitted by trusted sources (like this o.p.), and mostly on my processing of how the persons involved come across TO ME -- are they trustworthy, do their methods and motives wash, are their outcomes valuable? SNOWDEN/GREENWALD just don't pass my sniff test, is my bottom line. Their ballyhooed revelations about privacy and surveillance were nothing more than validation of my previous assumptions that the former has been near naught and the latter has been there, both for a long time.

[MisterP]

65. careful--this is how the "ballerina-evader" meme got started

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023035121

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Your informed post will fall on deaf ears

You are of course correct. People who think that their metadata will be used (as it probably can be) to reconstruct their lives are simply self-centered fools. They don't understand the big data problem here. Billions of calls run through these programs every day, but they think the government is worried about their "subversive" activities--comprised primarily of paying for Skinner's kids daycare.

[COLGATE4]

73. To this post

[On the Road]

78. I Really Appreciate the Background, jmowreader,

it's been almost impossible to get a picture of what's actually going on.

Would you happen to know whether the 50 phone numbers of terrorists are all overseas?

[MineralMan]

88. Thanks for posting that. nt