Loophole Shows That, Yes, NSA Has 'Authority' To Spy On Americans -- Directly In Contrast With Public Statements
from the and,-another-one dept
Right, so remember that claim yesterday from Barack Obama about how there is no domestic surveillance program? And remember in our post we noted that such a statement might come back to bite him, seeing that Snowden had leaked somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 more documents to Glenn Greenwald and somewhere in there, it seemed like there was a decent chance there was evidence that Obama was lying? Right, so, funny story... this morning, James Ball and Spencer Ackerman over at the Guardian have published the details of a neat little loophole that does, in fact, give the NSA "authority" to run searches on Americans without any kind of warrant. This is due to a "rule change" in 2011.This also seems reminiscent of our point on Wednesday, in which we noted that every time the NSA is asked about its ability to spy on everyone, it answers about its authority. And, here's evidence that it has clearly been given the "authority" to spy on Americans, contrary to the very clear language of the law.
Also, the timing of this seems interesting. Earlier, we'd noted that the NSA's massive data collection program, Stellar Wind, had been shut down in 2011. And... right about that time suddenly a new law is put in place allowing 702 searches to happen on US persons? I'm sure that's just a complete coincidence...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 702, backdoor searches, domestic surveillance, faa, fisa amendments act, loophole, nsa, nsa surveillance, ron wyden, surveillance, us persons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let me guess about the ramifications regarding all the lies we've been fed since the leaks...no consequences for anyone right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which would be both the only wrong response, and perhaps the only available response.
Think on that. A revolution is rapidly becoming a necessity in one of the most "stable" 'democracies' in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At this point, I'd settle for at least someone bringing charges against them. We all know how punishment works for the "haves" (there is none). But at least making them go through the process would be a welcome change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indictments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Indictments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Indictments...
The judiciary is a "secret court" with no real connection to the real judiciary.
The legislative is a select few from congress who can deny the rest of the legislative access on account of their field being littered with confidential and secret information. The system relies on the priviledged giving access to relevant information for a subject to be actually discussed and that is not happening.
The executive is only truely accountable to the people and since this field is covered in information that cannot legally be shared with the people, there is no real limit to their suggestions if they can keep the legislative select few greased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Indictments...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and then more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
Jedi have Mind Trick
...
I feel sad now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/13402222194/white-house-turns-star-wars-star -trek-mistake-into-funny-meme.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/01/173251266/jedi-vulcan-mind-meld-mind-trick-wha t-was-obama-thinking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does say they can't run USP queries?
Personally i think this whole NSA/GCHQ thing is awful and i will continue to vote Green as much as i can but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
Hint: it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
The NSA et al told us can't run queries on American citizens under the PRISM program unless they were in direct contact with foreigners. PRISM is directed at foreigners and foreign contacts, they claimed.
Well, this new tidbit shreds that notion because it points out that in 2011 there was a rule change that allows specific US persons to be targeted. You see the inconsistency between the statements and the reality?
At least they bothered to try to implement some sort of oversight over this program, but I doubt it was in any way effective, given their track record as of late...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden was right. If it's just "policy", that policy can change with different leaders, or even under the same leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More fundamental question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong loophole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong loophole
So? Like it's been for a while now: You can't prove they're collecting data on anyone because that's a state secret. Therefore no one has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the data collection. Something can't be ruled unconstitutional until it's challenged. Ergo, whether or not this is consistent with the Constitution is moot.
And even that doesn't matter. Secret court doesn't care what we think is constitutional even if we had a truckload of proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law abiding?
Law-abiding? It doesn't matter *what* you've done or which laws you've broken, a warrant is __still__ required by the only law that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NONE Of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NONE Of them.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule or exception?
Or might it be something akin to the warrantless search exception?
Honestly, is that information public or are we assuming at this point in time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]