do you honestly believe corporations could have prevented it?
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.
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.
Obama administration defends 2nd mass surveillance project | Fox News
how many companies participate...
y'know, unknowingly?
chilling
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.
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.A.) It'd be shocking if most people *didn't* find this shocking
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.B.) Of course the complaint should be with the government.
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.If the government really wanted those records, do you honestly believe corporations could have prevented it?
1) I'm not shilling for anyone.Don't be a shill for Obama, the govt can hand Google a warrant, and tell them to get the **** out of their way.
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.Obama is data mining huge ISP databases.....but why???
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.He's hunting down phone calls, emails, text messages, everything. And then he hired people who think like him to hound conservative groups.
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.I don't give a **** that it happened before....IT'S HAPPENING NOW!
Glenn Greenwald: U.S. wants to destroy privacy worldwide - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com
Politico, isn't that a leftwing rag?
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
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?
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.
that's not what happened in this case
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.
This is a "people need to learn what the heck they are freely putting on the Internet" thing
it has to be leftwing...
They both made the same choices
with the full knowledge and approval of their own representatives in Congress
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.”
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?
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
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.Obama administration defends 2nd mass surveillance project | Fox News
if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about
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.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"
Says the person quoting Fox News and The Hill. :roll:so many empty opinions, so few solid links...
Then why didn't the current guy stop it?
I agree 100% with this.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?