CNET Story Alleging NSA Can Listen To Phone Calls w/o Warrant Faces Skepticism - BIG UPDATE

[Tx4obama]

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

-snip-

Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he-was-told-government-could-listen

-snip-

UPDATE: Nadler walked back his comments in a statement to BuzzFeed on Sunday. “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_3448299.html

=============================================

CNET Story Alleging NSA Can Listen To U.S. Phone Calls Without Warrant Faces Skepticism

-snip-

That bold assertion lit up social media, but also drew skepticism, with many arguing that it seemed to be based on a misunderstanding.

The core of the CNET article focused on an exchange between Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and FBI Director Robert Mueller at a hearing on Thursday. (Watch above.) During questioning, Nadler claimed that in a separate, closed-door briefing, he had been told that NSA analysts could listen to the contents of a phone call at analysts' discretion.

Given the apparent illegality of listening to Americans' phone calls without warrants, some questioned whether Nadler understood the briefing he cited. As of late Saturday night, several publications were not able to reach the congressman for comment.

Mother Jones's Kevin Drum writes that "information from that telephone" could mean one of many things, and that Nadler may have been "confusing the ability of an analyst to get subscriber information for a phone number with the ability to listen to the call itself." Normative's Julian Sanchez wrote that Nadler may have been referring to a more limited set of circumstances than the CNET article implied.

Full article with hyperlinks here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_3448299.html

[pscot]

1. Plausible deniabiliyt is one of the handiest

tools in the box. Vagueness is all.

[HooptieWagon]

2. LOL! Took you guys long enough.

I guess the emails of your talking points were delayed in an NSA inspection.

[OilemFirchen]

6. Can't speak for the OP...

but whilst the freneticians were high-fiving their latest gotcha, I suspect at least a few of us were actually reading stuff instead.

Tomorrow, of course, will be Nadler's explanation. Good opportunity for y'all to get that bus ready.

[CakeGrrl]

11. Why the anger?

Other DUers aren't wiretapping you.

Take the fight to the people who you believe are violating your rights or persecuting your heroes, whoever they may be.

I for one don't receive talking points. Or is that part of the new paranoia to assume "you guys" are in cahoots?

[HooptieWagon]

14. I'm laughing too hard at you all to be angry.

Denial...it ain't just a river in Egypt. If you are completely fine with the government monitoring all your electronic communication, and lying about it, you would have fit right in in the Soviet Union. Totalitarianism is bad...when either party does it.

[Bobbie Jo]

126. What a load of

divisive bullshit.

[OilemFirchen]

3. Why doesn't this thread reek of burning hair?

Oh well.

Here's another bit of info that the kewl kids won't read:

Declan_McCullagh's Wikipedia page

[Tx4obama]

17. Thanks for the link! n/t

[ucrdem]

4. The devil is always in the details.

I scanned the CNET article and it doesn't exactly look like a smoking gun. I'm happy to see the issue examined, and there's no hope in hell that it would ever get any scrutiny at all in a GOP administration, but I don't think it's the end-all and be-all issue and I do think the Greenwald-Snowden performance amounts to swiftboating of a very high order and if there are any statutes under which either can be prosecuted I'd be happy to see them prosecuted.

[BlueCheese]

5. I'm not going to believe this until there's more confirmation.

It seems premature to publish this without at least getting a quote from Nadler himself, to make sure it's not a misunderstanding on his part. I'm not saying I believe it's false, but that I'm not yet convinced it's true.

As for the exchange itself, it's here:

Starts around 46:00 of this video:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1

[ucrdem]

7. Thanks!

yes there question of whose phone calls collected under what auspices is a little unclear in the CNET article and the Meuller-Nadler exchange seemed less than definitive as represented in the article so let's see what's in the video. . .

[RobertEarl]

8. Now you are spamming the board

You really think spamming will make this go away?

Desperate moves on your part.

What is your agenda?

[ucrdem]

9. Calm down.

This isn't spam, it's a link. Did you really think no one was going to scrutinize the latest bombshell?

[RobertEarl]

16. I'm calm as can be

You seem to have an agenda that is in opposition to my constitutional freedom.

Why is that?

Here, you can make some points... answer this one easy question.

Can the NSA tap your phone?

[Tx4obama]

20. Why do you keep accusing people of having an agenda?

[RobertEarl]

21. Answer the easy question: Can NSA tap your phone?

And this one: What is your agenda?

[ucrdem]

22. Yes, I have an agenda that includes more than NSA-gate.

I don't know if the NSA can tap my phone, but I'm confident that NSA procedures have been reviewed and amended by our elected Democratic president. In other words I don't condone it but I worried a lot more about it before Jan 20, 2009. And I worry a lot more about November 2016 and Syria than about NSA-gate right now.

[RobertEarl]

27. You don't know?

Yet here you are, all over the place telling me and everyone else not to worry, while all this time: You don't know.

And... we have several congresspeople saying that they can and are tapping phones. And still you write: ""I don't know if the NSA can tap my phone

Your ignorance allows you no room to comment. And that is why I ask, in light of your ignorance, What is your agenda?

[ucrdem]

28. I just told you what my agenda is. Why do you keep asking?

[RobertEarl]

30. Your agenda is confessed ignorance?

I can see that. So why are you all over the board telling people to act on something you you don't know much about?

There has to be some hidden agenda there to do something like that.

[ucrdem]

32. Can I be frank with you?

Anyone who expects total privacy on a phone or email conversation is a fool. I don't and never have. I've seen enough to know that it's very easy for just about anyone to listen in on a phone call. Don't forget that in the early days everyone was on a party line and nobody expected total privacy. Well, better to stick with that than get all excited when you find out that this or that agency might have the ability to do what a whole lot of other agencies can do.

[RobertEarl]

61. So, you admit they can tap your phone?

All that and you finally admit Obama can tap your phone.

Good for you!

[ucrdem]

62. I don't know if the NSA can or does,

but I know that many others can and do, including local telephone linemen whose girlfriends have gotten on the line to ask me to deliver messages to.

[RobertEarl]

65. Wow

You say the lineman can, but you don't know if the Bush people can?

Just wow.

[ucrdem]

68. Oh please.

You seem to be trying hard to miss the point which is not difficult to grasp. It's easy for local LEO and telecom workers to tap phones, yes. Deal with it. Whether it's possible for an analyst in Hawaii or Virginia or Utah to do it willy nilly I don't know. But I know they can't do it without a warrant.

[ohheckyeah]

129. Why should we "deal with it"

when it's being done illegally?

[nebenaube]

86. fool

[ucrdem]

91. Are you sure you're on the right discussion board? nt

[creeksneakers2]

106. Don't you want to hear both sides?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

10. Fortunately we have a whistle blower who makes it plain that they do

routinely.

Time for a full investigation, and for the SCOTUS to weigh in an put a stop to this illegality.

[ucrdem]

12. What illegality?

Who says any of this is illegal? Neither Nadler nor McCullough has actually clarified whose calls are eligible for listening by analyst's prerogative, that is if any actually are. And even that much hasn't been proven, just alleged.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

15. Harvesting and Storing of ALL Digital and Phone Records Clearly Violates the 4th Admendment

The ACLU has been trying to get standing in the courts to chalenge these illegal acts but have not been successful due to it all being secret, However, with the recent revelations they have recently filed new suits which they hope allows them to overcome the previous hurdle.

Now if what the recent whistle blower revelations are true (see my subject line) would you net concede that that system is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, and therefore illegal?

[ucrdem]

18. The SC has apparently decided that outside-the-envelope information isn't protected

by the 4th amendment and metadata is considered outside-the-envelope so even if it is being harvested and stored it wouldn't violate the 4th amendment.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

43. Apples and Oranges

This is about Harvesting and Storing ALL digital and phone communications.

The 79 case you reference was about a single individual, and just the phone numbers.

Only a supporter of a totalitarian state, would consider what they are doing now legal.

[nebenaube]

89. agreed..

if it's recorded, it's been searched.

[Tx4obama]

23. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Background
In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

[ucrdem]

25. Thanks!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. That has nothing to do with Harvesting and Storing ALL Digital and Phone Communications

That is about one person, and NOTHING to do about digital communications.

That is why the ACLU, among others, are suing.

[jeff47]

60. There is nothing in that ruling that restricts it to one person. (nt)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

71. Apples and Oranges

this is about EVERYONE and more than just telephone numbers, hello...

[jeff47]

114. No, it's actually exactly on-point.

If the phone company owns a single person's records, they own everyone's records.

Again, there is nothing in that ruling that says something like "only legal if 3 people or less".

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

115. Apples and Oranges: This is about the massive harvesting and storing of ALL Americans Digital Comm

as well as phone, which goes way beyond the scope of that case of one company and one American.

I think most reasonable people would agree we need the SCOTUS to weigh in on this, and order the immediate cessation of this illegal/unconstitutional program.

[jeff47]

116. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't suddenly make it true.

This is about the massive harvesting and storing of ALL Americans Digital Comm as well as phone

Nope.

Prism is explicitly non-US persons, thus they have no Constitutional protection.
The metadata program is about US persons, but it's the same metadata as in the 1979 case.

Every other claim about what the NSA is doing has not been backed up. For example, the "listening to phone calls" story from CNET last night was just destroyed by Nadler, who CNET claimed revealed it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

118. Well, that is what was revealed by the whistle blower

the documents released thus far are pretty straight forward, and are apparently authentic considering the huge reaction on the hill, etc. not to mention the NSA not disputing the authenticity of the documents.

There is nothing in those documents that say this only applies to foreigners, and the whistle blower said they are harvesting and storing ALL communications.

I wouldn't even know how they could technically distinguish between foreign and domestic anyway.

So, that is the issue, and that is why we need an official investigation, and for the SCOTUS to weigh in on this question.

We can a least agree on those 2 concerns at the very least.

[jeff47]

119. You should probably bother reading the documents.

There is nothing in those documents that say this only applies to foreigners

Try actually reading the documents about Prism. Remember when people were enraged that the surveillance could start if there was a 51% chance they were a foreigner?

Wouldn't it be rather odd for that tidbit to be in the documents about the program if it never said it applied to foreigners?

I wouldn't even know how they could technically distinguish between foreign and domestic anyway.

My personal guess is they're monitoring the fiber optic cables as they enter the US. Would make it really, really easy to filter out the vast majority of US persons.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

120. I did, they were 4 slides, and this is not about just the documents

the whistle blower said EVERYONE.

as to your guess, that would also contradict what the docs said.

Now, wouldn't you agree that we need an investigation, and the SCOTUS to weigh in on the legality of spying (harvesting, storing, and analyzing) on everyone?

[jeff47]

130. And if a whistleblower said we were ruled by alien lizards, would that make it true?

A whistleblower can say anything. And Snowden keeps changing the details of his story - his "web interview" today resulted in different answers than his previous claims.

As such, I'm not particularly inclined to believe something just because Snowden says so. Instead, the Guardian has released documents that talk about 51% foreign. Which would make no sense if they were collecting domestic information.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

131. We the people got more than that, TOP SECRET Documentation, too

FYI

[PSPS]

37. Not this again

Maybe you're too young to know about this. A "pen register" was a mechanical device installed in central offices that recorded the telephone numbers dialed by a phone. In telephone company jargon, this was part of the "service observing" process. The Bell System had very strict rules for doing this, like everything else. The information garnered was never divulged outside the Bell System except when required by law (i.e., a subpoena or court order.)

So any attempt to compare the free-wheeling NSA Hoover to the operation of a pen register is just ridiculous.

[CakeGrrl]

13. ???

Where did the "routine" allegation come from?

Why do you think SCOTUS will do anything about it? Congress voted it in. Under Bush.

[RobertEarl]

19. Ahh, there it is... Bush diid it, it must be OK

Finally, you have made clear your agenda: Bush says it is OK.

Quote: "Why do you think SCOTUS will do anything about it? Congress voted it in. Under Bush."

[CakeGrrl]

124. Wrong - you missed my point.

SCOTUS is GOP-leaning. THAT was my point.

You seem awfully obsessed with gotchas.

Good luck finding anyone who says "It's OK because Bush did it." That would be a downright silly line of reasoning.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

24. In our country we have something called the "Separation of Powers" for just this purpose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

Just because congress enacts a law doesn't mean that it is valid when considered against the laws set forth in our constitution.

If the ACLU are successful in their pursuit of bringing this question before the SCOTUS it is my opinion (and many others) that this is clearly a violation of at least the 4th amendment and possibly the 1st as well.

Besides the violations of our 1st and 4th amendments, it's also a huge boondoggle, a massive waste of resources and money (e.g. Boston bombings) that does very little to make us safe, and more likely to provide tyrants the ability to oppress and the business community to gain the upper-hand in are globalized market place by knowing exactly what their competitors are up to, something I think the rest of the world will have a problem with, too.

Wouldn't you agree that if the recent whistle blower allegations are true (Massive Harvesting and Storing of all digital and phome communications) are true that the gov is violating our constitutional rights?

[Tx4obama]

26. See Comment #23. n/t

[RobertEarl]

34. Way to totally ignore the post

You really are amazing. What IS your agenda?

The SCOTUS has NEVER said that wiretapping a phone without a warrant is constitutional. Yet here you are trying to pawn that off on folks.

I wonder if your reading comprehension may be a bit 'under the weather'?

[Tx4obama]

39. The issue is NOT wiretapping. NSA gets Court Orders to wiretap phones.

The issue here is the meta-database which does not have recorded conversations.

Nadler misspoke. He doesn't have a clue what the hell he is talking about.

And if you continue to keep accusing me and other DUers of having an agenda I am going to report you to the Admins.

Goodnight.

[RobertEarl]

47. You are way out in right field

This whole thread is about NSA listening to any phone call they want.

It is not just about the meta, it is about storing all communications.

You don't merely misspeak, you are deceptive with your Nadler accusations.

What is your agenda?

[HooptieWagon]

51. Carefull...

The professional operatives that don't exist on DU get very unhappy when called out. They start becoming alert happy.

[Dragonfli]

83. As I have so recently learned.

[Tx4obama]

52. NSA has never said they do that. The nut at CNET wrote an article that said that.

That article also said that Nadler was unavailable to CNET for comment.

So, what makes you think that the CNET story has any truth in it?

Nadler was corrected at the hearing.

In my opinion you're the one that is ignoring the facts.

Haven't you noticed that CNET is the only one reporting on this?

Please take your blinders off

[RobertEarl]

55. You wrote:

"The issue is NOT wiretapping. NSA gets Court Orders to wiretap phones"

The issue is wiretapping. The NSA is NOT getting warrants to tap phones.

It is clear as a bell from several different sources that the NSA is tapping any phone at any time.

You even admitted, did you not, that you know they can. And we know Bush approved their doing so.

Your denial and deception about the wiretapping without warrants is astounding.

[Tx4obama]

54. And also see Comment #50. n/t

[Tx4obama]

73. The CNET screwed up their article. Muller and Nadler were talking about 'meta-data'

-snip-

There’s no mention of it in McCullagh’s article, but this entire discussion was about metadata. They explicitly say this several times, using the word “metadata.” And metadata is not “listening to phone calls,” it’s the equivalent of looking at a telephone bill. That’s why Mueller begins (in the clip above) by saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The bottom line: this CNET article and headline are extremely misleading. There is no evidence here to support the hyperbolic claims made by their article.

-snip-

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

[RobertEarl]

75. Is Al Gore a friend of yours?

Al Gore: NSA Surveillance Violates The Constitution

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

38. See Comment #36. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

29. No. Congress voted in monitoring overseas calls.

That is why its called the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillence Act. They aren't supposed to target domestically, but were caught doing it. Thats why they are now collecting data on EVERY call...so they can claim they aren't "targetitng". However, they are still listening to phone calls w/o a warrant...per their own admission.

It might make you cheerleaders unhappy, but there's good evidence that Obama doubled down on Bush's eavesdropping program, quite probably illegally.

On the bright side...at least the terrorists will no longer be jealous of our "freedoms"...

[RobertEarl]

31. I think Obama may be clueless

I hope he hasn't allowed this unconstitutional spying.

I think some people conned him into going down this road and look forward to him busting the whole thing down.

[HooptieWagon]

33. I don't know what to think...

Obama certainly isn't dumb, but this sure is a dumb idea. I guess he's just beholden to all these security contractors, approved the program and hoped to keep it quiet.

[RobertEarl]

41. I doubt he knows the details

It's not like this really was a secret. It's just that it has been really exposed.

But then we read a few posters here trying their damnedest to obfuscate, deceive and deny. And we wonder WTF?

In deep chess theory, maybe Obama knows the only way to defeat this spying is to expose it, let it run it's course, and then, if it all works out, be free to shut it down because the people are so pissed?

Which would mean the "It's ok" posters, are in the bush league, like the one I replied to above?

[HooptieWagon]

46. If he doesn't know what's going on...

that's a serious indictment of his ability to lead. And why would he let it play out? Why not shut it down from the get-go? He could have used economic crisis to justify budget cuts. No, I think he knew exactly what it was all about, and went along because he was told to, and is trying ( and lying) to keep it from getting out.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Nadler is very smart, and decent

He knows what he heard.

"Spy on Everyone" is reality.

[Tx4obama]

40. Author of the CNET article also reported that Al Gore invented the internet. Gonna believe that nut?

[HooptieWagon]

48. He's an attorney....

They are pretty good at hearing. And a few I know are also adept at reading lips.

[PSPS]

42. LOL. I guess I'll have to add another reason to my "most often used" list

I guess I'll make it number 10

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused

[jsr]

109. 1a. It's Dick Cheney's fault

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2008/12/15/vice_president_cheney_calls_rush2

Vice President Cheney Calls Rush
December 15, 2008

RUSH: Talk about the incoming administration for just a second in one regard. One of the unfair, to me -- maybe I'm wrong about this -- one of the unfair criticisms is that you and the President have spent an inordinate amount of time beefing up, in a separation-of-powers sense, the power of the executive branch. You have strengthened it based on some weakening that you've felt that it had experienced in previous administrations. Now, do you think the incoming administration will benefit from the strengthening you have engaged in with the executive branch? Do you expect them to cede some of their power back to the legislative branch?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, my guess is once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, that they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place. We did not exceed our constitutional authority as some have suggested, but we -- the President believes, I believe -- very deeply in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age, and I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that, given the challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. He misspoke in 2012 as well

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/12/nadler-blasts-house-republicans-over-warrantless-wiretapping/

Or he being consistent?

I expect the good congressman to find his junk on the twitter, or a nice little scandal involving prostitutes or quite frankly a small plane.

Hey chickens are indeed coming home to roost from far afield, like El Salvador and Nicaragua and Abu Ghraib.

[ucrdem]

49. Okay I just heard the Nadler-Meuller exchange and this is what it sounded like:

Nadler: Do you need a warrant to listen to phone call messages?
Meuller: Yes.
Nadler: I heard just the opposite in the NSA briefing yesterday! {Gotcha! Clerks behind him high-5 each other}
Meuller: I think you're asking a different question.
Nadler: No it's the same question.
Meuller: {not impressed} I'll look into it.

In other words, we don't know what Nadler heard, Meuller doesn't know what Nadler heard, Nadler didn't say exactly what he heard, and he didn't publish or point to a transcript. So until we get more specifics the needle hasn't moved.

[RobertEarl]

56. Why?

Why do you not think that under Bush they wiretapped everyone's phone?

They can tap and Bush told them to go ahead and tap phones.

And this is somehow news to you?

[ucrdem]

57. Why what?

We're talking about what Nadler told Meuller at the FBI Oversight hearing on June 13, 2013.

[pkdu]

59. ^^^^^^^^^^^^If you only read one post in this thread READ THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ucrdem]

64. Thank you! Here's the link again,

posted earlier by OilemFirchen. The exchange starts at 46:00 but unfortunately you can't advance the video or at least I couldn't:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1

[DevonRex]

63. Words matter. What they said is not what Nadler thought they meant.

That's one reason this stuff isn't just bandied about. Definitions matter. Specifics matter. A short briefing isn't enough for that many people with that many questions to be able to keep their terms straight.

[RobertEarl]

67. Nsa can tap your phone

Bush told them to tap phones. He gave them billions to tap phones.

And some of you can't even imagine they are tapping phones?

No wonder this country is so bad off. Some people just don't have a clue.

[ucrdem]

69. Bush left office on January 20 2009.

We have a new president now. A Democrat.

[RobertEarl]

70. No shit

Wow, are you getting up to speed, or what?

It is the same NSA tho. Private contractors and all that money.

[DevonRex]

50. And cnet very carefully didn't report Mueller's response. And misquoted Feinstein.

Curious, that.

It also puts something in quotes that Feinstein did not say to reporters - not to give that meaning. Here is what she actually said.

"To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,” Feinstein told reporters. “Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it’s one number or two numbers. That’s all you have… if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.”
(PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)
Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, “that’s my understanding.”
So even though the NSA or other intelligence agencies must return to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get authorization to eavesdrop on a call, they do not need to ask the court to search the “metadata” that NSA collects from telecom providers. Officials must only conclude for themselves that they have a “reasonable, articulable” suspicion about someone and then they may query their database."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-nsa-92760.html#ixzz2WL4E0q00
_--------------

Cnet's reporting is some of the worst I've seen. It appears to be deliberate. But didn't anyone else here wonder why nobody else reported on it? Didn't anyone else wonder why the hell they would report this without talking directly to Nadler? Instead they just said he was unavailable for comment.

[ucrdem]

53. There's a lot of sauce in that article and a very meager meatball.

I just heard the CSPAN exchange and Nadler didn't exactly hit a homer, though he might have hoped to.

[RobertEarl]

58. Devon, what do you think

Can the NSA tap any phone they want?

Are they capable of tapping any phone they want?

So far, I have one "I don't know" and three or four people dancing around that real easy question.

Got your dancing shoes on, or blinders, or are you square?

[DevonRex]

74. Well, Robert,

I have been extraordinarily aware of the possibilities for a long, long time. Ever since I started in MI a long time ago. SIGINT, to be exact. Working as an Electronic Warfare Signals Intelligence Voice Interceptor, 98G2LRU (Russian language).

Capable? Hell, your local PD is capable of tapping your phone. And in case you missed this, I've been yelling at people for a week now to read up on Echelon. Nobody ever has. But just so happens somebody wrote a current article about it. Maybe you'll be interested. Anyway, NSA has been capable of doing a lot of things for decades.

Tech More: Edward Snowden NSA PRISM 60 Minutes
"If Edward Snowden Had Watched '60 Minutes' In High School He Could Still Be Living In Hawaii With His Beautiful Girlfriend"
NICHOLAS CARLSON

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/60-minutes-reported-nsa-spying-in-2000-2013-6#ixzz2WMAEfaK6
__----------------

And the transcript from the 60 Minutes Show from the year 2000
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
60 MINUTES

Television Broadcast February 27, 2000

ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES

STEVE KROFT, co-host:

If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.

How does it work, and what happens to all the information that's gathered? A lot of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the information is being used for more than just catching bad guys.

(Footage of satellite; person talking on cell phone; fax machine; ATM being used; telephone pole and wires; radio towers)

KROFT: (Voiceover) We can't see them, but the air around us is filled with invisible electronic signals, everything from cell phone conversations to fax transmissions to ATM transfers. What most people don't realize is that virtually every signal radiated across the electromagnetic spectrum is being collected and analyzed.
_-------

So, Robert, Google Echelon and then follow all the links in the Wikipedia article and at the end. I warn you, though. Switzerland's program, Onyx, is harder to find now. You have to use disambiguation. Don't forget to check out UKUSA.

So, don't say I have blinders on. I never have had.

[RobertEarl]

78. Thanks

Maybe the people who "Don't know" got themselves an edumacation?

So, the NSA is building all these data storage places. Ya think they will now be storing all those 'electronic signals'?

Seems as tho more than a few here are claiming they don't/won't/can't.

Tell them they can/will/do grab and store. Maybe they will listen to you?

[DevonRex]

111. That huge complex in Utah is for the storage of it all.

It'll be done in September.

Remember all the information is being stored by corporations anyway. They can be hacked at any time by any decent hacker for any purpose. Or an employee could snoop for someone else, put a tap on your line.

The government does have to jump through hoops to look at the data. For a citizen or green card holder, it has to already know the citizen or GCH is a member of a terrorist organization or is planning a terrorist attack. They can't open the records to find out IF those things are true.

People think it looks bad that the government has these programs but didn't catch the Boston bombers prior to the bombing. I say it should emphasize the safeguards against intruding into the lives of American citizens and GCH err on the side of the people, not spying.

Everyone is saying that Russia said he was radicalized!! Apparently a FISA judge doesn't think Russia's word is good enough without evidence to back it up. And, what does radicalized even mean?

Tamerlan posted a fiery cleric's sermons on his YouTube channel. Apparently a FISA judge calls that free speech. Tamerlan met with suspected Dagestani rebels while overseas. Just so happens they're his relatives through his mother.

None of it added up to being a member of a foreign terrorist organization or that he was planning a terrorist act here. Perhaps if Russia had been willing to give us what they had in their intercepts it would have helped. They declined every request.

What do I really think? I think that the intent is good. The safeguards are strict. There will always be people trying to get around the safeguards. So constant improvements have to be made in security. I don't like people who are nothing more than IT people having access to product. I never have. It's a huge problem that has to be addressed. Freelance hackers are spies with no allegiance. They do it because they can, then try to tell you they had some lofty goal. It's bullshit. Every single time.

We have to find out who hired Snowden at CIA. He worked for Dell first. Dell, who's a huge Bush contributor and who outsourced his manufacturing to China. Who dodged taxes. Obama tried to close a loop hole on his taxes. He contributed to McConnell and it failed. Dell was contacted by a reporter about Snowden. They said the Justice Dept told them not to talk. The JD said that wasn't true. Then Dell said it was their own attorney who said not to comment.

There are many, many facets to this. Nothing is simple. Except that we've known about this "news" for a long time. Even what's allowed under FISA is listed in Wikipedia - all the amendments.

[Whisp]

113. thanks for that post!

Hopefully that was a couple buckets full of water for smoking hair.

[struggle4progress]

66. If the NSA is engaged in warrantless wiretapping again, lots of us will be quite angry. But

the accusations mainly seem to be coming from the Libertarians

And I rather suspect they're following a strategy Greenwald laid out some time ago, which is to demonize the current Administration relentlessly, in hopes of harvesting Libertarian voters from the ranks of current Progressive Democrats

So some skepticism is warranted

[rhett o rick]

76. I do agree that skepticism is always warranted. But some here are only skeptical of whistle-blowers

and not the NSA. Although a lot of people, especially those that want this all to go away, are claiming they know the facts. They dont. But we know the NSA has in the past wiretapped without warrant. Why wouldnt they do it again? Dont they have the same players as they did under the Boosh Boy King. Isnt Clapper a Boosh favorite?

I dont trust REpublicans and the NSA and FBI directors are Boosh Republicans.

[Tx4obama]

72. Here's a link to a Little Green Footballs article, it a pretty good one...

CNET Says NSA “Admits” Listening to US Phone Calls - But That’s Not What the Video Shows

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

[ucrdem]

77. Good link. Nadler's "specific information" isn't exactly specific, is it?

Here's the key sentence:

We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant.

What information? And if they don't need a new warrant, what kind of original warrant do they need? And who is "you"?

Also, the NSA and FBI are two different agencies, so why would Meuller want to answer a question about the NSA's practices anyway?

It's beginning to look like Nadler swung hard but struck out.

[Tx4obama]

79. Yeah, there are two really good parts in there...

-snip-

The key quote here is, “We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone.” Notice: Nadler did not say they could listen to the phone call, he said “get the specific information.”

-snip-

There’s no mention of it in McCullagh’s article, but this entire discussion was about metadata. They explicitly say this several times, using the word “metadata.” And metadata is not “listening to phone calls,” it’s the equivalent of looking at a telephone bill. That’s why Mueller begins (in the clip above) by saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The bottom line: this CNET article and headline are extremely misleading. There is no evidence here to support the hyperbolic claims made by their article.

-snip-

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

[ucrdem]

80. The metadata point is interesting.

Nadler specifically asked Meuller about messages, not metadata, per the transcript, but then in his enigma-shrouded-in-a-mystery remark about the NSA briefing he doesn't make it clear at all. So basically the NSA needle hasn't moved a millimeter but CNET proved itself sub-tabloid in the politics department.

[HooptieWagon]

81. Using LGF for a source?

[Tx4obama]

85. I don't know anything about LGF, but their VIDEO and transcript and commentary in the article...

.. looks correct to me.

What do you see in that article, video, or transcript that is false?

Please point out what is not correct.
If it's false then I will delete it.

Considering there are only three articles (CNET, HuffPo, LGF) regarding this issue there's not much to work with here.
Seems to me IF the CNET article had been true more mainstream news websites would be running the story.

[HooptieWagon]

90. A closed door intelligence briefing doesn't have a public transcript.

Its secret, capece? Any purported video or transcript is fake. And LGF is a noted fakery site.

[Tx4obama]

93. Did you read the excerpt in Comment #79? He referred to what he heard in the briefing at the hearing

-snip-

The key quote here is, “We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone.” Notice: Nadler did not say they could listen to the phone call, he said “get the specific information.”

-snip-

Nadler said 'get specific information'. He did not say 'listen to phone conversations'.
So, the article and what Nadler 'said' in the hearing is relevant.

[ucrdem]

94. You're saying this C-SPAN video is fake?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1

Really?

[ucrdem]

87. It reposts and transcribes a C-SPAN video of a House judiciary committee hearing.

[HooptieWagon]

92. The Judiciary Committee meeting was when Nadler questioned Mueller.

Nadler questioned NSA at an Intelligence Committee meeting. National Security...its not going to be covered by CSPAN, nor are there video or transcripts. Are you guys dense, or just obstinate? There were TWO different meetings. Holy crap...

[ucrdem]

95. That's just the point I made in #49, and it's why Nadler struck out. nt

[HooptieWagon]

96. Are you deliberately misrepresenting tje facts, or merely incredibly dense?

At a Judiciary Committee meeting, Nadler asked Mueller if ph conversations could be listened to without warrants. Mueller replied "no". Nadler asled if that information was classified, Mueller replied "no". Nadler then stated that at an earlier meeting of the Intelligence Committee, the NSA official gave the opposite answer. He then gaxve Mueller an opportunity to answer the question again. Mueller fumbled for a reply, whereupon Nadler asked if he'd like some time before answering. Mueller said yes, he'd like to check before answering.

There were 2 different meetings being referenced. My ph doesn't play the clip you linked, but its likely the Judiciary Committee meeting. Very unlikely CSPAN would be recording the earlier closed meeting of Intelligence Committee...which is when Nadler was told of the warrantless eavesdropping.

Nadler was hardly schooled...in fact, it was Mueller who fumbled for an answer, and couldn't. Nadler is an attorney, and a good attorney always knows the answer to a question hes asking. He knew the NSA was illegally wiretapping, and he deliberately put Mueller on the spot.

Keep up your spinning though...you're making us ROTFL. If you're not being paid to spin, you're still being paid too much.

[ucrdem]

97. Neither, and you're not telling us anything we didn't know.

The problems here are that (a) Nadler got the FBI and NSA mixed up, and (b) he didn't give enough detail about what he'd heard to make it mean anything more than a soundbyte.

p.s. ease up on the caffeine eh? We're better than this.

[HooptieWagon]

98. You really think Nadler mixed up the FBI axnd NSA?

Uh, no. Your spin is surpassing desparate into the realm of ridiculous. Nadler is carefully examining the extent of Obama administration's surveillence programs...finding out who knows what.

[ucrdem]

99. Read the transcript if you can't see the video. We've given you the links. nt

[caseymoz]

82. When did Democrats turn against Whistleblowers?

That's right! When they had to support Obama! I forgot, every Democrat has to sell out all their other values to support this guy.

Something tells me your debunking article is going to go as well as Bob Cesca's debunking of Greenwald's original article.

Didn't Obama make his stand clear enough as Senator in 2008 when he voted for granting immunity to telecoms that spied for US intelligence? He was never asked about that, and never had to justify that. Are you really trying to acquit the guy when his record about surveillance, government secrecy, crushing whistleblowers, and extension of executive power is bottomless?

But I guess it's like Intelligent Design. It only has to seem plausible enough to let you keep your faith without feeling like an idiot.

[Dragonfli]

88. +!000

.

[Quantess]

100. Well said!

Hear, hear.

[BrotherIvan]

107. It is truly bizarre

I forgot, every Democrat has to sell out all their other values to support this guy.

I have noticed this as well and it's frightening. There is nothing wrong in supporting a politician who supports your ideals, but supporting him or her when they have sold them out and breached trust time and again is something else entirely. The cheerleading all over this board and in the OP are desperate attempts to hold onto a dream that does not exist.

[randome]

108. I hear you.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[okaawhatever]

117. I've noticed that many of these people are the same ones who were only around last time there was

something this high profile. I also noticed a couple of them were only around near election time. I think there are some paid for trolls here. They'll go away soon and we can get back to rational discourse. Don't let those fuc&^rs chase you away.

[morningfog]

128. Feel free to log off. Please.

[burnodo]

102. Now the Obama supporters like Huffington Post?

that's too funny in and of itself

[Cali_Democrat]

103. Yes...those evil Obama supporters link to Huffington Post

The horror.

[burnodo]

105. Apparently you've forgotten that HuffPo is regularly pilloried

as being a right-wing propaganda outlet by the same people who like this article.

And I didn't say "evil" because there is no such thing as evil.

[Egalitarian Thug]

104. Yep, that's it then. This is the desperate story that is going to make all the revelations magically

disappear from everyone's mind.

Got to give 'em credit, nobody else could have brought together the left, the middle, and the teaparty, not to mention inspiring both Democratic and republican leadership, people that up until now, haven't been able to agree that the sky is often blue, to close ranks and agree that this anything but important.

Yep, this is the story that is going to make everything just fine.

[dionysus]

122. don't you have a rape case to laugh at or something? sod off

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026265

[Egalitarian Thug]

123. Oh, have I made it into the He-Man-Women-Haters-Clubhouse?

I didn't see you over on the playground.

That's OK, just keep pounding away. I'm sure that you can make everybody forget about all that messy privacy stuff eventually. After all, it's "just a god-damned piece of paper", right?

[FarCenter]

110. A lawyer/politician misunderstanding information technology? Impossible!

[Tx4obama]

112. UPDATE below

-snip-

Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he-was-told-government-could-listen

-snip-

UPDATE: Nadler walked back his comments in a statement to BuzzFeed on Sunday. “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_3448299.html

[Scurrilous]

125. Thanks!

[ohheckyeah]

127. LOL.....

They CAN and do listen....Nadler didn't misunderstand a thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/