Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Let's Be Clear, say Legal Experts, What NSA Is Doing Is 'Criminal' [View all]questionseverything
(11,507 posts)97. ...
It gets run through the system, split into two parts, and stored until data-mining finds an "articulable suspicion", and another agency is alerted and seeks a FISA warrant. The content isn't looked at until a warrant is issued, we are told, but the content (acquired by the universal collection 2015 program) -- which must be minimized under 702 if not obtained with a proper FISA warrant -- is retained in a compartmentalized state. The content is isolated electronically (encrypted) from the metadata - that's how Bill Binney explained the process. The President also admits that's how the process works, here:
STEP 1: "2015" sweeps up the content and metadata into a database:
"You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place. So that database is sitting there," he said.
STEP 2: The NSA encrypts the content, stores the content, and profiling software start crawling through the metadata looking for links to foreign bad guys. NSA managers can deencrypt and put it back together again if the profiilng and datamining software shows there's an "articulable suspicion." FBI obtains a FISA warrant.
"Now, if the NSA through some other sources, maybe through the FBI, maybe through a tip that went to the CIA, maybe through the NYPD. Get a number that where there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this might involve foreign terrorist activity related to al-Qaeda and some other international terrorist actors.
Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out
STEP 3: NSA sends the reassembled data over to CIA or FBI:
A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Let's Be Clear, say Legal Experts, What NSA Is Doing Is 'Criminal' [View all]
99th_Monkey
Jun 2013
OP
Of course it isn't. Why else would a constitutional lawyer President classify it so extraordinarily?
Catherina
Jun 2013
#1
The FISA court that issued the warrant that Snowden leaked clearly thinks it is
arely staircase
Jun 2013
#43
I don't like secret courts either. But I can understand them for certain warrants.
arely staircase
Jun 2013
#60
Snowden's arrest warrant and the survelliance program are separate legal issues
Martin Eden
Jun 2013
#85
Even the Rubber Stamp known as FISA has ruled that the NSA has violated the constitution
think
Jun 2013
#101
If anyone is looking for a specific statute (and some appologists have demanded that others
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#7
You've claimed to be an attorney. Could you cite the statutes broken? When you were an attorney,
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#11
But he provided the warrant. The one to Verizon. If he's got other info, he should release it.
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#31
Nonsense. Agent Mike needs a warrant (like the one produced by Mr. Snowden.) The problem is that
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#41
The FISA court is not entitled to authorize interception of ANY domestic calls.
wtmusic
Jun 2013
#42
You are conflating two different things--domestic calls to foreign entities and calls that
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#45
Wikipedia? Ok. And thank you for admitting that you were wrong about FISA interception. nt
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#47
It is not from Harvard Law. It is from the Kennedy School of Government and the Belfer Center and
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#68
Prove that the government intercepts and stores the communications of every American. nt
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#70
None of this is proof. You've made a fantastical claim--that the communications of all Americans
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#73
Apparently I have been paying better attention. You have made the fantastical claim that all
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#87
But Snowden said he "saw things"! He said stuff! How much clearer do you need it to be?
randome
Jun 2013
#88
Ugh, I think that the court is just going to have to resolve this as it looks like a mess.
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#57
Well, are any of these legal experts on the Supreme Court or is this group some of the same
Thinkingabout
Jun 2013
#10
Problem is though that SCOTUS has not stepped in and said it was criminal.
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#22
I am well aware that the courts usually take a hands off approach to such cases
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#94
I agree. With 75 recs and so many posts, it's still not ANYwhere on the home page,
99th_Monkey
Jun 2013
#64
Things would be better if they were illegal, unfortunately, this is the law that got passed
Recursion
Jun 2013
#75
By the logic of some in this thread, legally, the Nazis were justified in doing what they did.
Democracyinkind
Jun 2013
#76
I think more could be found who say it was illegal, however, is populist media support
HereSince1628
Jun 2013
#82