NSA reforms

[kallend 1,623]

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304603704579326333792513314?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304603704579326333792513314.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

Excellent work on a proper poll.



I'm still troubled with the secret court.
It's still a violation of the 4th if this is still done without a warrant IMO.

[Andy9o8 0]

I'm inclined to vote Boobies, because it's all a sham for public consumption.

ETA -same point as yoink makes in the next post.

Dammit, yoink beat me to the ETA.

[yoink 321]

If people think what the NSA does is going to change then I've got some moonbeams to sell 'em.

The only thing that will happen is that they'll get better at keeping their shit private - until the next time they're caught doing it.


Dammit - Andy beat me to it.

[lawrocket 3]

I get the sense the President is telling us that if we like our privacy we can keep it...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 622]

Will this have any impact on data collection and use?

[lawrocket 3]

Nope. Not a chance. Even assuming that the SCOTUS throws out that evidence it won't extend the holding to the NSA.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

I get the sense the President is telling us that if we like our privacy we can keep it...

PERIOD!

Mission Accomplished!

Depending what you mean the definition of 'privacy' and 'keep' is

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

rehmwa

***I get the sense the President is telling us that if we like our privacy we can keep it...

PERIOD!

Mission Accomplished!

Depending what you mean the definition of 'privacy' and 'keep' is

Well, we already know what the definition of "mission accomplished" is.

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

******I get the sense the President is telling us that if we like our privacy we can keep it...

PERIOD!

Mission Accomplished!

Depending what you mean the definition of 'privacy' and 'keep' is

Well, we already know what the definition of "mission accomplished" is.

well you have to pass it before you can read it, read my lips, I am not a crook - even then, I was for it before I was against it. Before that I was pretty much up against that intern

But, I cannot tell a lie - it'll take four score and seven years to read it, if you can even log on.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

The problem here is this isn't something the President can really do a lot about. This is really an issue for Congress, which of course means nothing will get done.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

quade

This is really an issue for Congress, which of course means nothing will get done.

Something will get done:

We can always use it as an excuse to raise spending for lots of unrelated things while pushing the real issue down the road a couple years.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Because the President has considered it to be a problem before.

The President has MUCH to say about this. The executive branch proscribes regulations and systems for it. Where's the statute that says to collect all phone metadata? Or the statute that says, "the President shall conduct warrantless searches?"

Much of this is what the executive does with the power he is given. Yes, I'd LOVE to see Congress do something about this. Because I simply cannot see any President actually meaning it when he says, "I've got too much power and too much access to too much information. I'm proposing that I don't have it, any more." Well, no first-term President.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

The problem here is this isn't something the President can really do a lot about. This is really an issue for Congress, which of course means nothing will get done.

If anything, Congress has indicated a willingness to legalize all NSA activities if a judge had actually ruled against.

Expecting Obama and Congress to reform itself on this matter is about as sane as taking Iran's promises re: its nuclear program at face value. They got caught and now they're say: "believe me, I've changed!!"

[quade 3]

lawrocket

Because the President has considered it to be a problem before.

The President has MUCH to say about this.

Okay, I'm not trying to insult you, but you do know the Executive doesn't make the laws? Right? Congress makes the laws. The President can, put forth an Executive Order such as EO12333 issued by Reagan which is where this BS started, but it's actually Congress that makes things like the Patriot Act possible and it's Congress that funds the agencies like the NSA. It's also Congress that is supposed to have oversight of things like this so the Executive branch doesn't run wild reorganizing the bureaucracies like when GWB reorganized everything under the Department of Homeland Security.

THIS is a mess. It's been a mess for decades and we're only really coming to understand it now.

To believe whoever is currently sitting in the Oval can simply wave a magic wand to undo decades of bureaucracy building is silly. It's WAY bigger than he has the power to deal with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***The problem here is this isn't something the President can really do a lot about. This is really an issue for Congress, which of course means nothing will get done.

If anything, Congress has indicated a willingness to legalize all NSA activities if a judge had actually ruled against.

Expecting Obama and Congress to reform itself on this matter is about as sane as taking Iran's promises re: its nuclear program at face value. They got caught and now they're say: "believe me, I've changed!!"

Agreed. Except I'd remove the name of whoever is sitting in the Oval today with ALL the ones who have sat there after Carter and into the future. This isn't an "Obama" issue. It's an overall government bureaucracy issue. The office of the President is involved, but not solely in control.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Okay, I'm not trying to insult you, but you do know the Executive doesn't make the laws?

This is the grade school teachings, yes.

The high school version is a bit better, and the college one remarkably different.

As an example, it wasn't Congress that directed the CIA to successfully find and kill Bin Laden, was it?

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***
Okay, I'm not trying to insult you, but you do know the Executive doesn't make the laws?

This is the grade school teachings, yes.

The high school version is a bit better, and the college one remarkably different.

As an example, it wasn't Congress that directed the CIA to successfully find and kill Bin Laden, was it?

I was unaware the specific killing of bin Laden was written into law.

Please, point me to the citation where that happened?

No? You can't?

See this is the issue. The President can direct agencies to do certain things, but it is the job of Congress to pass LAWS. In this case, it would be extremely helpful if Congress passed a law stating it was illegal for the NSA to spy on US citizens without due cause.

I stand by what I said before, this is not the fault of any one individual sitting in the Oval. This is the evolution of a government bureaucracy. Government bureaucracies need checks and balances from all three branches of government. This entire episode has only come to light because of the unofficial fourth estate. The three official branches of government failed. It will take all three to fix it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

Because the President has considered it to be a problem before.

The President has MUCH to say about this. The executive branch proscribes regulations and systems for it. Where's the statute that says to collect all phone metadata? Or the statute that says, "the President shall conduct warrantless searches?"

Much of this is what the executive does with the power he is given. Yes, I'd LOVE to see Congress do something about this. Because I simply cannot see any President actually meaning it when he says, "I've got too much power and too much access to too much information. I'm proposing that I don't have it, any more." Well, no first-term President.

There are still 3 branches of government in the USA. According to the investigating commission, nothing (NOTHING) the NSA did was illegal according to laws passed by Congress or approvals granted by the judicial branch.

The secret courts that approved NSA actions (shades of the Star Chamber) weren't established by this President, nor do they answer to him, nor does he appoint their members (Roberts does), nor does he have any influence over them and the approvals they grant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

See this is the issue. The President can direct agencies to do certain things, but it is the job of Congress to pass LAWS. In this case, it would be extremely helpful if Congress passed a law stating it was illegal for the NSA to spy on US citizens without due cause

I hate to break this to you, Paul, but you might want to check this out. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR

And this, too: https://www.federalregister.gov/

Let us take a look at the law that needs to be changed. 50 USC section 1802(a)(1), which reads in pertinent part:

Quote

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

FUCK! Okay, it says "contents" of communications. but it appears that the "contents" are kinda exactly what the trouble is. DOUBLE FUCK - the President has discretion! Right there in the law is "may."

HEre's a concept: President changes his own rules for exercise of the discretion. Nope. THat's no fun.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

Quote

See this is the issue. The President can direct agencies to do certain things, but it is the job of Congress to pass LAWS. In this case, it would be extremely helpful if Congress passed a law stating it was illegal for the NSA to spy on US citizens without due cause

I hate to break this to you, Paul, but you might want to check this out. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR

And this, too: https://www.federalregister.gov/

Let us take a look at the law that needs to be changed. 50 USC section 1802(a)(1), which reads in pertinent part:

I see nothing there remotely as obnoxious as Section 215 of the Patriot Act and its interpretation made by the FISA court.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

Let us take a look at the law that needs to be changed. 50 USC section 1802(a)(1), which reads in pertinent part:

Quote

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

FUCK! Okay, it says "contents" of communications. but it appears that the "contents" are kinda exactly what the trouble is. DOUBLE FUCK - the President has discretion! Right there in the law is "may."

HEre's a concept: President changes his own rules for exercise of the discretion. Nope. THat's no fun.

Precisely my point. It's not up to the President to ensure this gets fixed. It's up to CONGRESS to revise the law to ensure government agencies, including the Executive, doesn't have that sort of "discretion." That's what a system of checks and balances is all about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I see nothing there remotely as obnoxious as Section 215 of the Patriot Act and its interpretation made by the FISA court.

There's plenty of obnoxiousness to go around.

Who is it that argues for this interpretation? If you say, "The executive branch, unopposed, makes these requests" then you'd be correct. And the FISA court doesn't even GRANT all the requests. The FISA court, as far as I know, isn't an Article III institution.

I place my blame everywhere. Not just the executive or Congress.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[beowulf 1]

lawrocket

I get the sense the President is telling us that if we like our privacy we can keep it...

That's the same thing I got out of it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Precisely my point. It's not up to the President to ensure this gets fixed. It's up to CONGRESS to revise the law to ensure government agencies, including the Executive, doesn't have that sort of "discretion." That's what a system of checks and balances is all about.

I agree - mostly.

Where I disagree is this: the President can easily say, "I'll stop abusing this." HE doesn't.

I think it'd be a nice start. "Immediately, I am tightening the standards on this. Concurrently, I am proposing legislation to strip my authority on this matter (of course, discretionary function is a pretty fundamental idea of the executive branch of government) to order these searches."

My wife is hotter than your wife.