The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

Who needs all of those pesky amendments. They just get in the way.

that multi-trillion utah data center is not for nothing

It's called the Bush Patriot Act. The government has been doing this shit since Bush started his "9/11 War on terrorism."

I have never agreed with the Bush wire taps. This is just republicans exposing more policies that Bush put in place that are fucked up.
Attachments:

FISA and Patriot Act all EXPANDED under Obama.

No problem, right?
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FISA and Patriot Act all EXPANDED under Obama.



Yeah, but Bush's illegal warrantless NSA surveillance program was retroactively legalized back under Bush.

This Obama shit - though deplorable - happens to be legal.

Some Perspective Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FISA and Patriot Act all EXPANDED under Obama.
>
>
>
> Yeah, but Bush's illegal warrantless NSA
> surveillance program was retroactively legalized
> back under Bush.
>
> This Obama shit - though deplorable - happens to
> be legal.


Power to those who live in the present.

"It's called the Bush Patriot Act"

I'm guessing you never heard of Carnivore...

They started paying phone companies for call record history as far back as 2001. Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth, and others have all provided data for the government's data mining. It's so effective in stopping terrorism that only 2 out of over 500 FBI arrests were actual terrorists (Richard Reid shoe bomber and Times Sq firecracker SUV plot).

Let's agree that this is deplorable regardless of who instituted or expanded it, and demand bipartisan efforts to fix it. So long as this remains a politics as usual issue, if one party comes out in favor of a fix the other will immediately claim they are soft on terrorism. And unless the measure passes Congress with a huge veto proof majority in both houses, the president will no doubt buckle under pressure from the bureaucrats who claim these things are NECESSARY.

ex-Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> only 2 out of over 500 FBI arrests were actual terrorists
> (Richard Reid shoe bomber and Times Sq firecracker
> SUV plot).

What about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Jose Padilla?

It must be a decent cash cow to the telecom service providers by now. They're doing the same thing with data-mining financial records.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was likley a dupe in a CIA sting. Remember he got on board a transAtlantic flight without a security interview despite paying for one-way ticket with cash and without a valid passport. There were so many red flags that it appears that the authorities were trying to place him on the flight. His father had gone to the US embassy to prevent his pending flight to the US, yet both the State Department and the CIA refused to put him on the no-fly list or the terrorist watch database.

The follow-up underwear bomber was a CIA plot. The White House is under fire for going after the AP newswire for revealing this fact in news reports.

Jose' Padilla. Where is the evidence? How do we know the Al Qaeda 'job' application was authentic and not a set up? We now know that many of these terrorists are being recruited through US allies to fight in Libya, Syria, and other countries. We also know that the US recruited militants to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The government taking all records of everybody and then determining which they want is not the way it should work.

It should be by warrant only. The Bush Patriot Act should of never happened.

Do you really want all your phone calls now in a database at the government where they can looked at?

It's probably very ineffective until after the fact. You need to know the names of one or more participants in a ring. Their argument for the Patriot Act was that it was too tedious to put together warrants for call patterns of associates everytime a new name popped up.

I guess the NSA trashed their CARNIVORE program which was supposed to sniff out keywords and such.

Carnivore then was a waste of tax payer money.

Build profiles and predispositions (criminals, terrorists, pedos, dissidents, and so on)

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-whistleblower-william-binney-explains-nsa-surveillance-2012-8

Well if they didn't record the contents, LIKE THEY SAID, then that's a relief because the calls between my girlfriend and I are very X-rated!!!

dumbdumbdumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the NSA trashed their CARNIVORE program
> which was supposed to sniff out keywords and
> such.
>
> Carnivore then was a waste of tax payer money.


The data NSA is getting from Verizon (and most likely all or most other phone service providers) is different than the data collected by carnivore.


OP: "The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25"

Maybe the blowback from the government's overreach will cause the Supreme Court to reconsider its current posture of resisting challenges to the authority of Obama's Star Chamber FISA "courts."

26 February 2013: US Supreme Court refuses to let Americans challenge FISA eavesdropping law

At its best, the US legal system has a great capacity to respond to changing circumstances, to what Justice Holmes called "the felt necessities of the time."

Hopefully our courts will start to "feel that feel," as the FU hipsters put it.

whistleblower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Build profiles and predispositions (criminals,
> terrorists, pedos, dissidents, and so on)
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-whistleblower-w
> illiam-binney-explains-nsa-surveillance-2012-8


There also are "big data" analysis systems which now are being used on a predictive basis in an attempt to identify patterns of behavior prior to.

Maybe the IRS targeting conservative groups will start to put the kibosh on all these over-reaching domestic spying programs.

Surprising that the WaPo picked up this Verizon story after it was reported in the foreign press first at UK Guardian, complete with the current court order to snoop calls.

http://www.businessinsider.com/affect-of-nsa-surveillance-on-obama-2013-6

Wanna blame someone for loss of constitutional rights?

Here ya go:

http://news.yahoo.com/heres-exactly-blame-congress-authorizing-government-spying-164654883.html

Unfettered wiretapping


In 2005, the New York Times reported that the NSA was wiretapping Americans without warrants on international calls. Los Angeles Times and USA Today later reported that the agency also had unchecked access to records on domestic calls.

In addition, a former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, said that a room accessible only with NSA clearance in the carrier's main San Francisco hub received perfect copies of all transmissions.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336659/NSA-collecting-phone-records-MILLIONS-Verizon-customers-daily-secret-order-issued-April-lasts-July.html#ixzz2VSeZoS4w

ex-Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's probably very ineffective until after the
> fact. You need to know the names of one or more
> participants in a ring. Their argument for the
> Patriot Act was that it was too tedious to put
> together warrants for call patterns of associates
> everytime a new name popped up.


But they've got time to look through your (or anyone else's) safe deposit box without so much as a by your leave.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-claims-authority-to-inspect-safety-deposit-boxes-without-warrants

Like it or not, our government is becoming the KGB at a pretty quick pace.

Protecting us from...................us.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But they've got time to look through your (or
> anyone else's) safe deposit box without so much as
> a by your leave.
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-claims-authori
> ty-to-inspect-safety-deposit-boxes-without-warrant
> s

If it sounds ridiculously outrageous, perhaps it is:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/safedeposit.asp

Olde Farte, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it sounds ridiculously outrageous, perhaps it is:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/safedeposit.asp


Wrong.

The Snopes article addresses the claim: "The DHS is secretly putting restrictions on what customers can remove from safe deposit boxes in case of 'national disaster.'"

That's entirely different from the assertion in the Examiner article that DHS has claimed authority under the Patriot Act to inspect safety deposit boxes without a warrant.

Note: I don't know if the latter claim is true or not, but it is not the issue addressed in the Snopes piece you linked.

Felt Necessities Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the blowback from the government's overreach
> will cause the Supreme Court to reconsider its
> current posture of resisting challenges to the
> authority of Obama's Star Chamber FISA
> "courts."

That's right. Completely ignore the fact that these are programs that were instituted in prior administrations and have found support from conservatives and Republicans as well as those in the current administration. As I said before you can play political games on this or you can try to fix it. So long as there are politicians who are willing to scream that the administration is soft on terrorism because they won't authorize (or will take away) excessive government prying and data gathering, the Fourth Amendment will lose.

Olde Farte, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wanna blame someone for loss of constitutional
> rights?
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/heres-exactly-blame-congress
> -authorizing-government-spying-164654883.html


The guy who wrote it disagrees with you.


Jim Sensenbrenner: NSA violated law
By: Jake Sherman
June 6, 2013 12:36 PM EDT


Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Republican author of the Patriot Act, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that says he is “extremely disturbed” by reports that the National Security Agency collected phone records from Verizon customers and insists it violates the law.

“These reports are deeply concerning and raise questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure,” the Wisconsin Republican said in the letter, sent Thursday.

Sensenbrenner, who chaired the Judiciary Committee, cited testimony from the Department of Justice from 2011, in which an assistant attorney general said they obtain so-called business records fewer than 40 times each year.

“I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirement of the Patriot Act,” Sensenbrenner wrote. “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?”

Correcting Correcter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Olde Farte, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If it sounds ridiculously outrageous, perhaps it
> is:
> >
> >
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/safedeposi
> t.asp
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> The Snopes article addresses the claim: "The DHS
> is secretly putting restrictions on what customers
> can remove from safe deposit boxes in case of
> 'national disaster.'

The Snopes article addresses the original story that this latest one (revealed on April 1st, BTW...) derives from - note the similar wording and see:

https://www.google.com/search?q=DHS+safety+deposit+boxes

@ Bill.N. I'm a member of the Church of What's Happening Now.

The stuff happening now is happening on Obama's watch, and the buck stops with Obama. That's reality, not a political game.

I was opposed to the Patriot Act and the creation of DHS.

If Bush stomped on the 4th Amd, Obama has stomped on it just as much, and indeed in cleverer, more extensive ways.

Regardless, many of those on the left who screamed at Bush for his transgressions are holding their silence because they don't want to hurt "their guy," Obama.

Political games are played on both sides.

I've nothing against bipartisanship, but however nice it is in theory, it's rare in practice.

Sen. Cruz came out against the SC's recent 4th amd ruling re warrantless DNA collection, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the lib and left-wing posters at Volokh Conspiracy supporting his stance.

So maybe there's hope for bipartisanship yet -- if things get bad enough, and unfortunately it looks like they will.

Oh wait

HES FUCKIN CANADIAN

Dirty snow backs

This is one of the things I hate about Obummer - he got elected to change the messed up things Bush did and he ends up just doing the same or more. He has turned out to be a real pussy when it comes to protecting the constitution. They are all the same folks...

Olde Farte, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Snopes article addresses the original story
> that this latest one (revealed on April 1st,
> BTW...) derives from - note the similar wording

Fair enough.

The new story smells like a hoax to me (it's sourced to a discussion board post).

That said, the Patriot Act is like a magician's hat filled with eggs, birds, rabbits, and who the hell knows what else they'll pull out next.

I think the new story's a hoax, but I wouldn't fall off my chair in shock if it were not.

Bush takes phone records without a search warrant. Liberals and media up in arms. Obama takes phone records without a search warrant. Answer from liberals and media "well Bush did it too". Just which part of hope and change does this come under? Smells like more of the same.

Correcting Correcter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said, the Patriot Act is like a magician's
> hat filled with eggs, birds, rabbits, and who the
> hell knows what else they'll pull out next.

When I first heard about the "Patriot" Act I was ... dismayed.

And remain so to date.

With any luck the Supreme Court eventually will get around to throwing it out.

With any luck.

We hope.

"Bush takes foreign phone records without a search warrant. Liberals and media up in arms. Obama takes domestic phone records without a search warrant"

FIFY...

Look around 'Liberals' you hated bush because of this and wat up with Barry. I voted for O thinking he would address this shit and turns out he just wants his power and place in history to - as one of the a-holes that shat on the bill of rights. What choice do we have?

"What choice do we have?"

None. The genie is out the bottle and nothing is going to put it back in.

Republicans really pushed Barack into a corner. I think he is still a good man.

BIll Press Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans really pushed Barack into a corner. I
> think he is still a good man.

Jess1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Bush takes foreign phone records without a search
> warrant. Liberals and media up in arms. Obama
> takes domestic phone records without a search
> warrant"
>
> FIFY...

Most Republicans are defending Obama. Liberals and libertarians are up in arms.

Also Bush tapped the communications at the UN before the vote on the Iraq war resolution.

ex-Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jess1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Bush takes foreign phone records without a
> search
> > warrant. Liberals and media up in arms. Obama
> > takes domestic phone records without a search
> > warrant"
> >
> > FIFY...
>
> Most Republicans are defending Obama. Liberals and
> libertarians are up in arms.


You're an old commie loser.

Turn off Pacifica and Occupy while you still have some brain cells, very few pubs are defending Obama.

You're an idiot. Almost all of the criticism is coming from the left. Outside of Rand Paul, the Republicans are coming to the defense of Obama and snooping on Americans. By definition, that's where the right stands now because they've ridded themselves of traditional conservatives who were in favor of limited federal powers.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304045-nsa-pits-obama-vs-left

Sen. Lindsey Graham glad NSA spying on Americans

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/sen-lindsey-graham-glad-nsa-secretly-spying-on-americans/

WoW, Republicans against the Patriot Act. This country really is getting better.

Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, on the other hand, responded to the revelation of the NSA’s tactics under the Obama administration by calling it “an astounding assault on the Constitution.”

He's right, the lone Republican son of Ron Paul whom was defamed and attacked by the Republican establishment is a try defender of the Constitution. But he's referred to as a "wacko bird" by the rest of Republicans.

His father by the way acquired a lot of his support from younger college liberal minded voters and activists.

He despises everything the GOP stands for, the man you reference. He has no choice but to participate in the two party system.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's right, the lone Republican son of Ron Paul
> whom was defamed and attacked by the Republican
> establishment is a try defender of the
> Constitution. But he's referred to as a "wacko
> bird" by the rest of Republicans.

Because Ron Paul was an idiot on a lot of things. He would start with good ideas and take it a step to far. His son so far has proven to be much more reasonable.

> His father by the way acquired a lot of his
> support from younger college liberal minded voters
> and activists.

A lot of his supporters just wanted legalized drugs.

> He despises everything the GOP stands for, the man
> you reference. He has no choice but to
> participate in the two party system.

False. He would be an independent if that was true.

When was the last time an independent got elected?

ex-Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're an idiot. Almost all of the criticism is
> coming from the left. Outside of Rand Paul, the
> Republicans are coming to the defense of Obama and
> snooping on Americans. By definition, that's
> where the right stands now because they've ridded
> themselves of traditional conservatives who were
> in favor of limited federal powers.
>
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304045-
> nsa-pits-obama-vs-left


You're full of shit.

Take a look at Drudge, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, etc., etc.

The ONLY reason that your article is 'news' at all is because it's ALSO the Left criticizing Obama. That's the whole point of the article you dumbass. lol

Quote

"Revelations the National Security Agency seized millions of Americans’ phone records under President Obama's watch is pitting the White House against the political left.

Liberals have defended Obama on a series of controversies, from the Benghazi terrorist attack to Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s seeking funds from insurance companies to promote ObamaCare, arguing that Republicans are exaggerating the charges for political gain."

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last time an independent got elected?


Liberman switched to an Independent when he was in office.

Maine just elected an Independent to the Senate in the last election and Vermont has one as well whose a self identified socialist who was elected in 06.

It may not be that common but it does happen and theres usually 1 or 2 though the two current ones as basically just dems with a different name. Theres been several in the last 10-15 years.

It may not be mainstream but does happen. If he actually despised the GOP he likely would have switched to one by now. He doesnt just blindly follow things which is good, but he certainly doesnt hate the GOP and seems to be setting up to become one of the new leaders

This was already settled by a genius forefather of ours hundreds of years ago.

Benjamin Franklin - "Those whom sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."


I don't know of any eight words together with a deeper meaning.

I'm so sick of libby libtards who want to stop the government from doing it's job and reversing all the accomplishments of Bush.

LET"S FACE FACTS THE BUSH PATRIOT ACT and DOMESTIC SPYING HAS SAVED MANY LIFES!

THE PATRIOT ACT HAS ALSO STOPPED MANY TERRORIST PLOTS!

You damn libtards want your damn freedom but you won't let the government and military do it's job.

FUCK YOU LIBTARDS!

Warning
Attachments:

Its not libtard to protect our freedoms. Its what it means to be an American. This country is nothing without freedom. You are not a responsible citizen to this nation and its constitution.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not libtard to protect our freedoms. Its what
> it means to be an American. This country is
> nothing without freedom. You are not a responsible
> citizen to this nation and its constitution.
Attachments:

The government responds to our needs of security vs liberty. It is up to us to define which is more important for us and what that balance should be through all these various activities. Its not the fault of the gov't, its doing what's expected of it to the best if its ability. It is the fault of people for not showing the importance of their liberties as well.

Let me give you some advice. The smarter and more freedom loving a person is the more he is inclined to side with freedom and our fourth amendment rights.

Gerry = Alias

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me give you some advice. The smarter and more
> freedom loving a person is the more he is inclined
> to side with freedom and our fourth amendment
> rights.


So I guess that explains Obama being out of that group huh?

lulz

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry = Alias


I don't know who Alias is. I typed that because I was posting from my phone and didn't want to log on.

pvYH9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let me give you some advice. The smarter and
> more
> > freedom loving a person is the more he is
> inclined
> > to side with freedom and our fourth amendment
> > rights.
>
>
> So I guess that explains Obama being out of that
> group huh?
>
> lulz


Obama is under extreme pressure to keep the nation safe. He wants to decrease military expenditures to reign in budget deficits. He also faces a recent unprecedented politicization of terror attacks which was evidenced by the Benghazi saga. Therefore a President is left with no choice but to do all within his capacity to provide for national security.

As I already stated. This is a moment where Americans must decide how much their freedom and privacy is important to them. The politicians will respond to their constituents.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pvYH9 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Let me give you some advice. The smarter and
> > more
> > > freedom loving a person is the more he is
> > inclined
> > > to side with freedom and our fourth amendment
> > > rights.
> >
> >
> > So I guess that explains Obama being out of
> that
> > group huh?
> >
> > lulz
>
>
> Obama is under extreme pressure to keep the nation
> safe. He wants to decrease military expenditures
> to reign in budget deficits. He also faces a
> recent unprecedented politicization of terror
> attacks which was evidenced by the Benghazi saga.
> Therefore a President is left with no choice but
> to do all within his capacity to provide for
> national security.
>
> As I already stated. This is a moment where
> Americans must decide how much their freedom and
> privacy is important to them. The politicians
> will respond to their constituents.



Huh? I thought al Qaeda was on the run?

According to his speech the other day the war on terror is over. We don't have to do that kind of thing any more. Remember?

Muslims all over the world love us now because of his understanding.

That Boston bombing thing that happened even with all of the sacrifices to freedoms, which we had warnings about, was just a fluke.

lulz


But I do agree in one respect - He's not up to the job.

Like I said, if your crusade against Muslims supersedes your expectation of the preservation of your rights as an American, then that's your prerogative. I on the other hand have a different perspective on the conservation of our Republic in it's current revered form.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like I said, if your crusade against Muslims
> supersedes your expectation of the preservation
> of your rights as an American, then that's your
> prerogative. I on the other hand have a different
> perspective on the conservation of our Republic in
> it's current revered form.


That seems to be the case that Obama is making today.

But then he was arguing the other side last week.

Pick one.

Liberals welcome this much needed debate. Conservatives demonize it and accuse a lack of nationalism. There's the critical difference. If you want to get partisan about it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals welcome this much needed debate.
> Conservatives demonize it and accuse a lack of
> nationalism. There's the critical difference. If
> you want to get partisan about it.


What the fuck are you talking about?

Obama only wanted this "debate" once the lid was off. Before that, in his own words, it was "secret." But not really a secret because Congress knew about it (but not really because they didn't for the most part). Remember? lol

You both are having to talking so much shit lately trying to defend the indefensible that you can't keep the talking points straight.

Upside down, inside out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Liberals welcome this much needed debate.
> > Conservatives demonize it and accuse a lack of
> > nationalism. There's the critical difference.
> If
> > you want to get partisan about it.
>
>
> What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> Obama only wanted this "debate" once the lid was
> off. Before that, in his own words, it was
> "secret." But not really a secret because
> Congress knew about it (but not really because
> they didn't for the most part). Remember? lol
>
> You both are having to talking so much shit lately
> trying to defend the indefensible that you can't
> keep the talking points straight.


His Muslim-tests would never stand a chance if we had a real American in office like John aka "Beaner".