• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies

There's still one place left in the US where Government respects your privacy... but who wants to crawl up someone's womb every time you want to make a phone call?
 
do you honestly believe corporations could have prevented it?
Click to expand...

Obama administration defends 2nd mass surveillance project | Fox News

The companies that participate knowingly in the program are Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple, the Washington Post reports.

A number of the Internet companies issued statements Thursday night saying they only complied when legally bound to do so.
Click to expand...

how many companies participate...

y'know, unknowingly?

chilling
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
A) The fact people seem to find this surprising amuses me.

B) If these companies are allowing access, your complaint is not with the government, but rather the systems which are allowing access.
Click to expand...

Don't be a shill for Obama, the govt can hand Google a warrant, and tell them to get the **** out of their way. Obama is data mining huge ISP databases.....but why??? What's he looking for, it ain't terrorists cause they're on the run....remember? He's hunting down phone calls, emails, text messages, everything. And then he hired people who think like him to hound conservative groups. Oh but that was just an accident, sure. I don't give a **** that it happened before....IT'S HAPPENING NOW! It needs to stop. He's got the EPA hassling people too, lots of govt agencies involved in slimy ****.
 
The Prof said:
Obama administration defends 2nd mass surveillance project | Fox News



how many companies participate...

y'know, unknowingly?

chilling
Click to expand...

Pre-Emption - Inside The Nsa | Spying On The Home Front | FRONTLINE | PBS

Here from PBS, no liberal will dare bitch about this article, it's from Liberal Heaven itself.

This is what the Left is in denial over, they'll fight to the death to protect Obama from blame. But he's using this for political purposes. The NSA, IRS and EPA, and who knows what other agency hasn't been discovered yet. Information is POWER. Sounds like conspiracy, because that's precisely what it is. But Obama is smart, like I've said in other threads he hired his friends.....social justice nuts like himself to implement policies to scrutinize and silence political enemies. That's Chicago style politics.
 
greenwald and the guardian are gonna get it

oh, wait---they're in england

The Obama administration is invoking an obscure legal privilege to avoid judicial scrutiny of its secret collection of the communications of potentially millions of Americans.

Civil liberties lawyers trying to hold the administration to account through the courts for its surveillance of phone calls and emails of American citizens have been repeatedly stymied by the government's recourse to the "military and state secrets privilege". The precedent, rarely used but devastating in its legal impact, allows the government to claim that it cannot be submitted to judicial oversight because to do so it would have to compromise national security.

The government has cited the privilege in two active lawsuits being heard by a federal court in the northern district of California – Virginia Shubert v Barack Obama et al, and Carolyn Jewel v the National Security Agency. In both cases, the Obama administration has called for the cases to be dismissed on the grounds that the government's secret activities must remain secret.

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has written in court filings that "after careful and actual personal consideration of the matter, based upon my own knowledge and information obtained in the course of my official duties, I have determined that the disclosure of certain information would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. Thus, as to this information, I formally assert the state secrets privilege."

The use of the privilege has been personally approved by President Obama and several of the administration's most senior officials: in addition to Clapper, they include the director of the NSA Keith Alexander and Eric Holder, the attorney general. "The attorney general has personally reviewed and approved the government's privilege assertion in these cases," legal documents state.

In comments on Friday about the surveillance controversy, Obama insisted that the secret programmes were subjected "not only to congressional oversight but judicial oversight". He said federal judges were "looking over our shoulders".

But civil liberties lawyers say that the use of the privilege to shut down legal challenges was making a mockery of such "judicial oversight". Though classified information was shown to judges in camera, the citing of the precedent in the name of national security cowed judges into submission.

"The administration is saying that even if they are violating the constitution or committing a federal crime no court can stop them because it would compromise national security. That's a very dangerous argument," said Ilann Maazel, a lawyer with the New York-based Emery Celli firm who acts as lead counsel in the Shubert case.

"This has been legally frustrating and personally upsetting," Maazel added. "We have asked the government time after time what is the limit to the state secrets privilege, whether there's anything the government can't do and keep it secret, and every time the answer is: no."

Virginia Shubert, a housing expert from Brooklyn who is the first named plaintiff in the case, said she joined it because she considered the vast monitoring of telecommunications and emails in the wake of 9/11 to be an erosion of her rights. She called the use of the state secret privilege in blocking the action "absurd. When the government faces allegations that it has violated the constitution, it cannot hide behind state secrets to avoid accountability."

In court motions, the Obama administration has set out the information that it claims is exempt from legal scrutiny under the privilege, including "information that may tend to confirm or deny whether the plaintiffs have been subject to any alleged NSA intelligence activity" and "any information concerning NSA intelligence activities, sources, or methods that may relate to or be necessary to adjudicate plaintiffs' allegations."

The government goes further and says that the state secrets privilege also covers "allegations that the NSA, with the assistance of telecommunications carriers such as AT&T and Verizon, indiscriminately intercepts the content of communications and also collects the communication records of millions of Americans."

The second case, Jewel versus National Security Agency, was lodged in 2008 following the disclosures of an AT&T whistleblower, Mark Klein. He revealed in 2006 that the telecoms firm had set up a secret NSA room within its San Francisco office in which all phone calls from the region were passing through a splitter cabinet that sent a copy to the NSA.

Mark Rumold, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation working on Jewel, said that this week's disclosures by the Guardian would make it increasingly difficult for the administration to claim the state secrets privilege.

"The Guardian's disclosures may fundamentally alter the government's approach as they are going to have a tough time convincing a judge that this stuff is secret," he said.
Click to expand...

US government invokes special privilege to stop scrutiny of data mining | World news | guardian.co.uk

secrets, lies, bullying, privileges...

why did clapper lie to ron wyden?
 
hidingrpolitics said:
A.) It'd be shocking if most people *didn't* find this shocking
Click to expand...
It was shocking years ago. The only shocking thing about it now is the fact people were seemingly oblivious to this going on for a decade.

B.) Of course the complaint should be with the government.
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn't. The complaint is with the ones who willingly turn over the data, without being required too. I know it's fashionable these days to hate on "big bad government", but if these companies are not protecting your privacy, your beef is with them, not the government.

If the government really wanted those records, do you honestly believe corporations could have prevented it?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if they COULD have prevented it, it matters that they didn't try. If they denied the request, and the government got a court order which forced them to turn over the records, then you could be enraged at the government all you want. But that's not what happened in this case.
American said:
Don't be a shill for Obama, the govt can hand Google a warrant, and tell them to get the **** out of their way.
Click to expand...
1) I'm not shilling for anyone.
2) You seem to think the government is one entity, all in cahoots, conspiring against Americans. It really doesn't work that way.
3) If the government HAD done that, then you could be upset with government. But they didn't.

It's called being logical and paying attention to the facts. Instead of going about crying "shill", how about you put aside your erroneous understanding of government and try just using the facts?

Obama is data mining huge ISP databases.....but why???
Click to expand...
No, Obama is not, the NSA and FBI (and I'm sure many other agencies as well) are, just like they have been for years. It's amazing how much people believe the President can do in one day.

He's hunting down phone calls, emails, text messages, everything. And then he hired people who think like him to hound conservative groups.
Click to expand...
Do you ever get tired of making up stuff that has yet to be supported with any evidence? This is why I cannot stand Republicans these days.

I don't give a **** that it happened before....IT'S HAPPENING NOW!
Click to expand...
Of course you don't care it's happened before, that gets in the way of you blaming Obama for all the bad things that have ever happened in the world.


This is not an Obama thing. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing. This is a "people need to learn what the heck they are freely putting on the Internet" thing. When you post your information to Google, when you leave your e-mail on Microsoft's servers, it's not yours. It does not belong to you. When you update your status on Facebook, it's considered to be public information. Put the blame where it belongs, which is on these companies who allow the government to mine the data with ease.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL - and people honestly wondered why giving Bush permission to wiretap / etc - without warrant was bad . . . it eventually explodes and turns into something like this - a revisit of the Communism FBI affairs from the early 1900's
Click to expand...

Or like giving someone the ability to launch Hellfire's from a drone with impunity. Sure, they'd never abuse that power..........
 
That's what the sharing with 3rd parties is all about...
 
Got to love how the right blames Obama and yet it all started under the last guy... and has been going on with the full knowledge and approval of their own representatives in Congress. Whats next... blaming Obama for drought, floods, the flu... the dog **** outside your door?
 
Should we consider these programs as threats to our 4th Amendment rights? Probably. But our right to privacy was thrown out in the previous administration. Just to be fair to both sides of the aisle, this program began under W., with support from congress. BUT Obama continued it. I suppose that in itself shows that it (and others) strengthened National Security. I remember Bush predicting that the next administration would continue his programs once they saw the reports, I suppose he was correct. What you think about these programs depends on your faith in the current state of government, I myself trust Obama to not push the programs to the extreme. Although I would be worried if an ultra- conservative got into office. The thing that perplexes me the most though, is how this turned into 'scandal". We have known about this since 2006, I quite frankly don't understand why we are suddenly freaking out again (Late reaction? DejaVu?).
 
PeteEU said:
Got to love how the right blames Obama and yet it all started under the last guy... and has been going on with the full knowledge and approval of their own representatives in Congress. Whats next... blaming Obama for drought, floods, the flu... the dog **** outside your door?
Click to expand...

Gotta love how the left seems to think that just because a Republican POTUS started a stupid policy that it makes it okay for a Democrat POTUS to continue the stupid policy. Just make sure you don't address the issue at hand instead of the issues from 5-6 years ago.
 
It blows my mind that some of you want to turn this into a partisan debate when in fact it is a bipartisan violation of our rights. Idiots from both sides of the aisle are doing this. POTUS's from both sides of the aisle have a hand in this. We have had a GOP controlled Congress, a Dem controlled Congress, and a split Congress in power during all of this. Yet, some of you want to say "It's Bush's fault!" "It's Obama's fault!" "Republicans started it!" "Dems took it too far!" How about it's your fault for continuing to vote in these idiots that make no issue of this and toe the party line. Of course, when we want our media to dig so deep into a politicians life, even to go as far as criticize him for leaving his dog on the roof or eating dog, I guess we'll get no sympathy from them when they dig into our lives a little.........
 
MarineTpartier said:
Gotta love how the left seems to think that just because a Republican POTUS started a stupid policy that it makes it okay for a Democrat POTUS to continue the stupid policy. Just make sure you don't address the issue at hand instead of the issues from 5-6 years ago.
Click to expand...

The point is, all blame is going on Obama .. which is beyond pathetic. It might be a stupid policy, but a GOP President started it, and a Democratic congress with Republican members have approved the damn thing every 3 months since 2006.

Explain to me why Obama and his administration are being blamed for using the tools at their disposal? Why is there zero blame on Congress let alone the GOP members who not only voted for it, but freaking advocated such **** under the last President, where people on the right DEFENDED such bull**** over and over again...

Sorry but this utter hypocrisy and passing the hot potato and ignoring past sins, not to mention being totally gullible in believing this was not happening... talk about living in a fantasy bubble world.
 
that's not what happened in this case
Click to expand...

Obama administration defends 2nd mass surveillance project | Fox News

The companies that participate knowingly in the program are Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple, the Washington Post reports.

A number of the Internet companies issued statements Thursday night saying they only complied when legally bound to do so.
Click to expand...

if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about

This is a "people need to learn what the heck they are freely putting on the Internet" thing
Click to expand...

absolutely

and what on the campaign trail in 08 was a "violation of the basic civil liberties of the american people" and an "abuse of power" is friday morning in sunny san jose a "modest encroachment on privacy"

Obama On NSA Program: "Modest Encroachments On Privacy Are Involved" | RealClearPolitics

he's matured

Obama: Surveillance Debate A "Sign of Maturity" That Wouldn't Have Happend 5-6 Years Ago | RealClearPolitics

LOL!
 
I'm not trying to pin the fault on Bush or Obama, Bush made the program, Obama continued it. They both made the same choices.
 
They both made the same choices
Click to expand...

alex abdo, staff attorney for the aclu: surveillance under bush "at least was targeted at agents of al qaeda" instead of "every customer of verizon business services"

forbes link above
 
with the full knowledge and approval of their own representatives in Congress
Click to expand...

so many empty opinions, so few solid links...

so much embarrassing ignorance

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday disputed a claim President Obama made at a press conference only moments earlier, when the president said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) domestic phone surveillance program.

Merkley said only select members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the program, and that he was only aware of it because he obtained “special permission” to review the pertinent documents after hearing about it second-hand.

“I knew about the program because I specifically sought it out,” Merkley said on MSNBC. “It’s not something that’s briefed outside the Intelligence Committee. I had to get special permission to find out about the program. It raised concerns for me. … When I saw what was being done, I felt it was so out of sync with the plain language of the law and that it merited full public examination, and that’s why I called for the declassification.”

At a press conference on Friday, Obama said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the phone monitoring program. The president argued that the policy, which was implemented in 2007, struck the “right balance” between privacy and national security, and that it had been helpful in thwarting terrorist attacks.

But Merkley on Friday blasted the administration’s handling of the program, saying it had ignored requests from Congress to explain the NSA’s domestic surveillance actions, and that it was implementing the program in a way that did not follow the “standard of the law.”

Merkley argued that “plain language of the law” said that the NSA should only be allowed to collect phone data that related to an open investigation, but that the agency was using a “broad vacuum” to sweep up data from ordinary Americans.

“The administration hasn’t listened at all,” Merkley said. “We’ve asked for the rulings of the FISA court – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court – about how it interprets the laws Congress passes to be declassified so we can have a conversation with the American people about that.”

“For example, the question is — how is scooping up your cellphone data, which tracks where you are, my cellphone data, related to an investigation?” he asked. “That’s the plain language of the law — related to an investigation. Well, certainly anyone would hear that and think that’s a certain hurdle that has to be met. That there’s a crime or a potential crime or a potential national security threat that justifies scooping up your information and my information. Clearly the administration has not followed what an ordinary person would consider to be the standard of the law here, and has not been willing to release the opinion of the FISA court in how they’re interpreting that language, despite repeated requests from Congress to do so.”

“By the way,” Merkley continued. “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.”
Click to expand...

Dem. Senator disputes Obama's claim that Congress was briefed - The Hill

there's a great deal more that's been published on this question...

but you don't read, so what's the use
 
PeteEU said:
Got to love how the right blames Obama and yet it all started under the last guy... and has been going on with the full knowledge and approval of their own representatives in Congress. Whats next... blaming Obama for drought, floods, the flu... the dog **** outside your door?
Click to expand...

Then why didn't the current guy stop it?
 
The Prof said:
mike allen? jim vandehei? ben smith?

Journolist veers out of bounds - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

you don't know what you're talking about

it's cuz you don't read enough

why did clapper lie to wyden
Click to expand...
?
Click to expand...

Depends on what the meaning of "wittingly" is.
Apparently when Clapper said "wittingly" he meant "voyeuristically" as he has since helpfully clarified.

"What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that," Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.

There ... now isn't that better?
 
The Prof said:
Obama administration defends 2nd mass surveillance project | Fox News



if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about
Click to expand...
I do know what I'm talking about, and your biased source does nothing to prove my statement false. Seriously, learn a little bit about how technology works.

absolutely

and what on the campaign trail in 08 was a "violation of the basic civil liberties of the american people" and an "abuse of power" is friday morning in sunny san jose a "modest encroachment on privacy"
Click to expand...
So..what you're saying is that this isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue, like I claimed from the very beginning? Thanks for realizing I'm right.
The Prof said:
so many empty opinions, so few solid links...
Click to expand...
Says the person quoting Fox News and The Hill. :roll:
 
fmw said:
Then why didn't the current guy stop it?
Click to expand...

why should he? Its legal and according to both the right and left under Bush and now under Obama... it is effective.

Listen I dont like it one bit, since it is non-American's that get hit the hardest by US policies... but we have grown to expect this behavior from the resident bully regardless who is in power. You elected your politicians who put these laws in place so deal with it.

Only way to get rid of this... get rid of the Patriot act and similar laws.. what are the chances of this?
 
PeteEU said:
why should he? Its legal and according to both the right and left under Bush and now under Obama... it is effective.

Listen I dont like it one bit, since it is non-American's that get hit the hardest by US policies... but we have grown to expect this behavior from the resident bully regardless who is in power. You elected your politicians who put these laws in place so deal with it.

Only way to get rid of this... get rid of the Patriot act and similar laws.. what are the chances of this?
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom