General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPro-Privacy Senator Wyden on Fighting the NSA From Inside the System
Since Snowden is in the news again
From October 23, 2014
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/senator-ron-wyden-q-a/
The Snowden documents revealed a lot about NSA surveillance activities, but there are at least two extraordinarily serious areas that are still in the shadows: the NSAs use of a so-called backdoor search-loophole and its use of Executive Order 12333, which some fear the NSA has been using as a hall pass to do virtually anything overseas with presidential approval.
Although the NSA is not allowed to target Americans for surveillance, under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the NSA can collect data on suspected foreign terrorists and foreign agents, and in doing so, emails and other data belonging to Americans gets swept up as well. The NSA is supposed to take steps to minimize the acquisition, retention and distribution of this incidentally collected American data. But in 2011, the government got the FISA Court, which oversees surveillance under the FAA, to agree that the government could deliberately search this American data, using email addresses and phone numbers as the search terms, without needing a warrantwhat civil liberties advocates refer to as a backdoor search since it allows the government to essentially target Americans through searches of incidental collection without specifically targeting their data for collection. The data isnt just available to the NSA, however. The FBI also has access to it.
No one, however, not even the NSA, knows how much collected data belongs to Americans and how often it is searched. Ive gotten letters from director Clapper and others saying that this problem is growing, Wyden says. In fact director Clapper wrote me a letter saying the FBI doesnt even keep track of them, which causes me to be even more concerned.
Wydens outrage over the searches is all the stronger because he notes that The Bush administration, as incredible as it sounds, closed [this loophole] before they left in 2008, and the Obama administration came back and re-opened it. Hes referring to the fact that under the Bush administration, searches of the data was restricted.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And Udall's.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Valhallakey
(70 posts)I still cannot believe we elected Gartner over Udall when it should not have even been close.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)So clearly the people wanted to choose the far more right wing guy over the Third Way guy because he wasn't liberal enough.
This is the sentiment I hear a lot here and it's disappointing. I think we should judge officials on their merits, not whether or not they're part of a New Democrat coalition.
But yes I was quite disappointed in that outcome. It blew my mind. But midterms suck. We managed in 2010 but 2014 was a disaster.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)snot
(10,530 posts)his support for NSA surveillance.
Whose constitutional law was it that he studied???
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That should've told you he defended the status quo.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, before the vote, he had said he would filibuster, but did not.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/
Obama was a lot more equivocal in 2008 than some of your posts would suggest. He said a variety of things about the same subject and often used carefully chosen words to give one impression, while avoiding definite statements that could be held against him later.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Telecom immunity should've never been granted. We're talking a purely unconstitutional act. It's not one says, but what one does, and Obama voted for immunity. To think he'd then go on, as President, to whittle down wiretapping is absurd. For 1) he didn't have the legislative power to do so and 2) no President has ever given up powers that they have. Ever. The very idea that he would stop wiretapping and NSA spying is preposterous. Especially given he was a junior senator with no experience with the realities of government. He didn't even spend any time on it for his first few years.
Ironically, Hillary Clinton voted no. How about them apples?
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not about to get into the silly debate that a newly elected Democratic President with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate can do zero about legislation. Point, was, before he was elected his support for telecom immunity was nowhere near as clear as your post stated--and I would bet a lot that you haven't forgotten the promise to filibuster and the promise to fix after he became President.
[
Ironically, Hillary Clinton voted no.
Who said she didn't? I thought you really wanted another candidate for POTus, but defend Hillary constantly oonlly because you feel a need to correct all the bs others allegedly post about her. Which statement are you "correcting" there?
How did your alleged "real" candidate vote?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)When Clinton voted no on it she said:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_Obama_split_on_wiretap_vote_0709.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)You seem to think that somehow Obama could live up to promises to reign in spying on citizens when he voted for policy that strengthened spying on citizens. Anyone could've predicted the outcome.
merrily
(45,251 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)while big-talking gutless wonders like Rand Paul bitched out at the last minute...So I got respect for him...
Cloture fell just two votes short...