Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Don't you guys ever get tired of looking stupid, yep stupid. Once again Trump and his minion Nunes are shown to have made false claims. Ethics rules have been violated and it is Trump and his team, not Susan Rice, who is under investigation. AGAIN...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Wow, it's like talking to a wall. The heads, of all Of our intelligence agencies, who would have had to of had a hand in taping Trumps phones, said Obama did not tap Trumps phones, period.

JEWELSTAITEFAN, you are a poster on an online site called Firefly. Regarding this topic, your making any kind of alternative claims is meaningless. You do understand that right? All of you here, who have agendas, post fake news and claim Trumps lies are true, do understand this right? That you post on an online site named Firefly, and once you spin the facts, what you say is no longer valid . Therefore your views and opinions are null and void. You guys know this right?

---

Quote:

---

JEWELSTAITEFAN, THUGR you are a poster on an online site called Firefly. Regarding this topic, your making any kind of alternative claims is meaningless. You do understand that right? All of you here, who have agendas, post fake news and claim Trumps lies are true, do understand this right? That you post on an online site named Firefly, and once you spin the facts, what you say is no longer valid . Therefore your views and opinions are null and void. You guys know this right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

JEWELSTAITEFAN, THUGR you are a poster on an online site called Firefly. Regarding this topic, your making any kind of alternative claims is meaningless. You do understand that right? All of you here, who have agendas, post fake news and claim Trumps lies are true, do understand this right? That you post on an online site named Firefly, and once you spin the facts, what you say is no longer valid . Therefore your views and opinions are null and void. You guys know this right?

---

Now I get to read how THUGR thinks I'm "misquoting" him, again!

---

You are SIG. Misquoting me I mean. That's just a fact. You inserted your own text into mine. Even if it is only a word or name. It's something you and others here do all the time to change the context of a reported story or post. What I would point out foremost though, is your 3rd grade response to my post. I know you are but what am I, really SIG. That's what it is when you do what you just did. Say my own words back to me.

Let me ask you SIG. When you see most people around you have a good idea what's going on, and you realize that your thought process is slow, you cannot fully comprehend what's in front of you, how do you continue without calling it quits?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Wow, it's like talking to a wall. The heads, of all Of our intelligence agencies, who would have had to of had a hand in taping Trumps phones, said Obama did not tap Trumps phones, period.

JEWELSTAITEFAN, you are a poster on an online site called Firefly. Regarding this topic, your making any kind of alternative claims is meaningless. You do understand that right? All of you here, who have agendas, post fake news and claim Trumps lies are true, do understand this right? That you post on an online site named Firefly, and once you spin the facts, what you say is no longer valid . Therefore your views and opinions are null and void. You guys know this right?

---

Thanks for the laff! Though I'm sure your humor was entirely unintentional.

---

I'm glad to see you read this 1kiki. You are one of the fools, (liars) I was addressing with my post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:


Care to try addressing the facts, again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

---

To funny 1kiki. Blanks is what you're firing every time you answer someones' post this way. It shows you to be stumped, stymied, at a lose for words, frustrated, snookered, confounded, flummoxed. I could go on but it would be wasted on a dimwit. Oh, that's a stupid or silly person.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:


Care to try addressing the facts, again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

---

Like I said

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:


Care to try addressing the facts, again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Landmark Legal Foundation just filed a request with the secret court.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15593/breaking-mark-levins-landmark-lega
l-foundation-ben-shapiro#

http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=909975

---

Quote:

---

BREAKING: Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation Asks FISA Court To Order Investigation Into Anti-Trump Targeting, Leaks

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What happened?
All of the deniers are suddenly mum? Mute? Admitting they have been guilty all along? What?

---

Good for Mark. Go get em buddy. Lots of investigations going on. Kind of exciting isn't it? Hey did anyone notice the Republican Senator from Utah is not running for reelection? I'll give you a hint as to why. He is on the Senate intelligence committee and he knows he will be having to investigate Trump on one charge after another. He knows that would be a career killer. He is leaving to ride out the storm and will be back with the weather clears.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What happened?
All of the deniers are suddenly mum? Mute? Admitting they have been guilty all along? What?

---

Good for Mark. Go get em buddy. Lots of investigations going on. Kind of exciting isn't it? Hey did anyone notice the Republican Senator from Utah is not running for reelection? I'll give you a hint as to why. He is on the Senate intelligence committee and he knows he will be having to investigate Trump on one charge after another. He knows that would be a career killer. He is leaving to ride out the storm and will be back with the weather clears.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This post from 27 March may not be the most recent post in this thread from SGG, and I do not mean to imply whether or not the poster has gained enlightenment since this post. But I quote it as example of the tone of some of the posts in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!

SGG

---

It appears some detractors in this thread are up-to-date on their FACTS Vaccine Booster shots, and seem incapable (or at the minimum, unwilling) of comprehending what the contributors of this thread are providing in terms of facts.

So perhaps we can iron out a few details in the framework, and then address which specific items the Libtards and other Democrats are in feverish denial about.

It looks like most of these illegal acts are covered under 50 U.S.C. Sec 1809 and 18 U.S.C. Sec 798, and provide both criminal sanctions as well as civil liability. Also 50 U.S. Code Sec 1813.

1. Obamabots target Trump and his campaign people for wiretapping, but dance and jump around the legalese terms of the law by claiming that they are "officially" targeting only foreign subjects who are most likely to be in phone conversations with the real targets, the Trump people. Only Libtards and other Democrats claim this is "normal" or "regular" or "common" practice, policy, or procedure. Practiced by every President all the way back to Benjamin Franklin's first term.
By avoiding the intent and spirit of the law while dancing around the letter of the law, they violated the spirit and intent of the law. At this point Libtards will start arguing what the definition of the word "is" is.

2. Obamabots intentionally violate US 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I. B. IV. 1813. By refusing to mask the identities of "incidentally collected" American Citizen subjects of no National Security interest. This is illegal, fer every surveillance and for every person whose privacy is violated.

3. Illegal dissemination of the information to other Obamabots. See my March 22 post (the 49th post) of this thread for part of this.

4. Conspiracy to leak Classified information to non-authorized persons (political hacks), for the purpose of leaking the Classified information to non-authorized persons without Classified Clearance. This would include BimbObamabot Evelyn Farkas bragging about the Obamabot Army Conspiring to disseminate the Classified information (which she was not even authorized to have possession of - no "Need-To-Know" for her, a political Campaign Director for Hilliary, and no position whatsoever in the National Security arena) for the specific purpose of leaking the Classified data to the media (see my post on March 29 in this thread - the 56th post).

5. The illegal leaking of the Classified information, illegally collected against Private American Citizens, to non-authorized persons. Authorized people for recieving Classified are required to have valid Security Clearance as well as Need-To-Know (meaning the Classified information is pertinent to their work in the National Security arena).

6. The leaking of Classified information to the media, for distribution to the masses, without authorization from competent authorities to release Classified information.


So, which of these specific and particular illegal acts are the Libtards and other Democrats trying to claim they are not guilty of? Or are you agreeing that Obama is guilty of all of them?

---

Quote:

---

In June 2013, reports from a cache of top secret documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its international partners had created a global system of surveillance that was responsible for the mass collection of information on American and foreign citizens. Obama initially defended NSA mass surveillance programs when they were first leaked.

---

Quote:

---

NSA concedes violating surveillance limits and pledges curbs on US email collection


Amid an unexpected fight over US surveillance powers from congressional Republicans, the National Security Agency has agreed to curb its highly controversial collection of Americans’ emails that discuss foreign intelligence targets, although how comprehensive that stoppage is remains unclear.

According to a US official directly familiar with the decision, the NSA has agreed to cease so-called “about” surveillance under a critical 2008 legal authority, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa).

Yet the NSA has other authorities available to it for collecting substantial amounts of the same sort of American communications, including a Ronald Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333. The NSA has not indicated whether or not the “about” collection will cease wholesale, or merely migrate to a different legal authority.

Though the NSA continues to defend the legality of the surveillance it is curbing, it conceded on Friday that the decision follows an internal review that determined it violated constraints agreed to with a secret surveillance court. It called those violations “inadvertent”.

The US surveillance juggernaut has assured intelligence officials that it will limit its vast interception of US communications that transit the internet, known as “upstream” collection, under section 702 to those messages sent from or received by foreign intelligence targets.

It portrayed the decision, first reported by the New York Times, as an optional measure to protect Americans’ privacy, while not conceding a key point of its critics: that such “about” collection violated Americans’ constitutional rights to privacy.

Though the NSA continues to insist “about” collection is legal, the intelligence agency has pledged to delete the “vast majority of its upstream internet data”, it said in a statement.

“The changes in policy followed an in-house review of Section 702 activities in which NSA discovered several inadvertent compliance lapses”, the agency said, which it reported to Congress and the foreign intelligence surveillance court.

It is far from the first time the NSA has conceded that its vast surveillance powers under section 702, a surveillance authority expiring in December, have surpassed the boundaries set with the Fisa court.

A Fisa court decision from 2011, declassified in 2013, found that the agency had overcollected tens of thousands of purely domestic US emails in violation of the law, which permits warrantless interception of Americans’ international communications so long as one party to the communication is a foreigner overseas.

The NSA at the time represented the 702 overcollection as an unavoidable consequence of its collection technology – a limit it cited on Friday to warn that the agency could not fully purge its hoards of data that it now pledges no longer to collect.

“Because of the limits of its current technology, [NSA] is unable to completely eliminate ‘about’ communications from its upstream 702 collection without also excluding some of the relevant communications directly ‘to or from’ its foreign intelligence targets. That limitation remains even today,” it said.

Yet the NSA’s authorities under executive order 12333 are vast, undisclosed and unconstrained by any need to explain its collections to the Fisa court. A former state department official who has warned Congress about 12333, John Napier Tye, has alleged that the NSA uses 12333 as a backup plan to route around legal restrictions on US surveillance.

“To the extent US person information is either stored outside the United States, routed outside the United States, in transit outside the United States, it’s possible for it to be incidentally collected under 12333,” Tye told the Guardian in 2014.

It is unclear to sources briefed on the matter whether such surveillance routing to the executive order is in effect.

But the decision to limit collection under 702 comes amid an unexpected political backdrop: resistance to renewing the expiring statute by the congressional Republicans charged with championing it on Capitol Hill.

With the Trump administration incensed at leaks over its communications with Russian officials that it blames on US intelligence, Republicans on the House intelligence committee have openly warned NSA that they cannot guarantee the votes for renewing the controversial surveillance power without a leak crackdown.

Since 2008, the Republicans have typically led a defense of 702 powers, particularly against the revelations of widespread surveillance provided by Edward Snowden. But in a partisan reversal, intelligence-panel Democrats on Friday looked past the admitted NSA violations and called for the statute’s renewal.

“Going forward, I will continue to expect strict compliance with the Fisa court orders and will push for Section 702’s reauthorization along with any additional reforms needed to further strengthen and institutionalize protections for privacy and transparency,” said Adam Schiff of California, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

Schiff’s Senate counterpart, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, added: “I believe we can now look forward to Congress and, in particular, the Senate intelligence committee on which I serve as vice-chairman, quickly turning to the consideration and debate of this critical authority prior to its expiration set for December 31, 2017.”

Civil libertarians hailed the NSA decision while warning that surveillance checks need to go further.

“While we welcome the voluntary stopping of this practice, it’s clear that Section 702 must be reformed so that the government cannot collect this information in the future,” said Michelle Richardson of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

---

Quote:

---

I'm surprised that nobody else seemed to notice. Ok, not surprised. Disappointed.- SIGNY

Actually, I assumed that from way back, so when I did notice this latest mention it was barely a blip, "well duh." Did you not already know this? There are a lot of bad hombres out there with really bad intentions. Do you think they deserve their privacy? I really don't think my conversations with MAGONS gets marked very high. That's your paranoia talking. Flynn's discussions with the Russians? That's another matter. YOU, presumably a US citizen, should also really want to know what they were about.- G

---

Quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Quote:

---

If there is evidence of wrongdoing

---

Quote:

---

NSA collected Americans' phone records despite law change: report

By Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON

The U.S. National Security Agency collected more than 151 million records of Americans' phone calls last year, even after Congress limited its ability to collect bulk phone records, according to an annual report issued on Tuesday by the top U.S. intelligence officer.

The report from the office of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was the first measure of the effects of the 2015 USA Freedom Act, which limited the NSA to collecting phone records and contacts of people U.S. and allied intelligence agencies suspect may have ties to terrorism.

It found that the NSA collected the 151 million records even though it had warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to spy on only 42 terrorism suspects in 2016 in addition to a handful identified the previous year.

The NSA has been gathering a vast quantity of telephone "metadata," records of callers' and recipients' phone numbers and the times and durations of the calls - but not their content - since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The report came as Congress faced a decision on whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the NSA to collect foreign intelligence information on non-U.S. persons outside the United States, and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

Privacy advocates have argued that Section 702 permits the NSA to spy on Internet and telephone communications of Americans without warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and that foreign intelligence could be used for domestic law enforcement purposes in a way that evades traditional legal requirements.

The report said that on [at least] one occasion in 2016, the FBI obtained information about an American in response to a search of Section 702 data intended to produce evidence of a crime not related to foreign intelligence.

The report did not address how frequently the FBI obtained information about Americans while investigating a foreign intelligence matter, however.

On Friday, the NSA said it had stopped a form of surveillance that allowed it to collect the digital communications of Americans who mentioned a foreign intelligence target in their messages without a warrant.

TRUMP'S ALLEGATIONS

The new report also came amid allegations, recently repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump, that former President Barack Obama ordered warrantless surveillance of his communications and that former national security adviser Susan Rice asked the NSA to unmask the names of U.S. persons caught in the surveillance.

Both Republican and Democratic members of the congressional intelligence committees have said that so far they have found no evidence to support either allegation.

Officials on Tuesday argued that the 151 million records collected last year were tiny compared with the number collected under procedures that were stopped after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the surveillance program in 2013.

Because the 151 million would include multiple calls made to or from the same phone numbers, the number of people whose records were collected also would be much smaller, the officials said. They said they had no breakdown of how many individuals' phone records were among those collected.

In all, according to the report, US. officials unmasked the names of fewer Americans in NSA eavesdropping reports in 2016 than they did the previous year, the top U.S. intelligence officer reported on Tuesday.

The report said the names of 1,934 "U.S. persons" were "unmasked" last year in response to specific requests, compared with 2,232 in 2015, but it did not identify who requested the names or on what grounds.

Officials said in the report that U.S. intelligence agencies had gone out of their way to make public more information about U.S. electronic eavesdropping.

"This year's report continues our trajectory toward greater transparency, providing additional statistics beyond what is required by law," said Office of the Director of National Intelligence spokesman Timothy Barrett.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I'm surprised that nobody else seemed to notice. Ok, not surprised. Disappointed.- SIGNY

Actually, I assumed that from way back, so when I did notice this latest mention it was barely a blip, "well duh." Did you not already know this? There are a lot of bad hombres out there with really bad intentions. Do you think they deserve their privacy? I really don't think my conversations with MAGONS gets marked very high. That's your paranoia talking. Flynn's discussions with the Russians? That's another matter. YOU, presumably a US citizen, should also really want to know what they were about.- G

---

That's what WARRANTS are for, G. The 4th Amendment ... maybe you heard of it?

Quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

If there is (plain sight) evidence of wrongdoing, the court issues a warrant to allow a search and seizure of more evidence. According to our Constitution, the government isn't supposed to be able to randomly seize evidence from anybody/ everybody "just because".

If I were THUGR, I would accuse you of trying to destroy one of our democratic institutions ... our Constitution.

---

Wrong, if there is evidence of wrongdoing in plain sight SIG. The authorities don't need a warrant. If there is probable cause, or they wish to see what will turn up if they wait to act, then a warrant is sought. The problem here is that Trumps claims of being wiretapped have been debunked by all the relevant intelligence agencies. You keep acting as though you know best, when you can't even rap your head around that.

If any of the massive amounts of collected information is to be securitized, a warrant is requested. Until then it is located in a massive data base. Imagine a google type search. Certain things like phone numbers of foreign agents, or contacts with some foreign countries triggers interest. Were talking billions of conversations SIG. It's collected, not reviewed. And not all requests for a warrant are granted. It's a very thorough process you have to go through to get one. You should have such protections in Russia comrade.

You keep posting shit about current events, and how our laws work, that shows you are being intentionally misleading, or that you are clueless. Either way, you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:


That being said, they already have all of the conversations that Trump and all of his cronies have had with anybody going back probably as far as the Access Hollywood tape. If there was collaboration with Russia, show the proof please.

---

What is it that makes you so, well, naïve. Trump may be innocent. There may be no collusion or inappropriate contacts with Russia discovered. The process however, of discovering whether or not he did has to proceed. What's been transpiring here, is some have been claiming Trumps innocence from day one. Evidence be damned. They have also been supporting his false claims against Obama. Others here, including myself, are saying there is a trail of circumstantial evidence that must be followed. And on occasion, posting what that evidence is.

After all 6, Trump did make a foreign agent this countries national security advisor. If for no other reason, these investigations must proceed. We need to protect ourselves from that kind of stupidity, or treasonous behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What is it that makes you so, well, naïve. Trump may be innocent. There may be no collusion or inappropriate contacts with Russia discovered. The process however, of discovering whether or not he did has to proceed. What's been transpiring here, is some have been claiming Trumps innocence from day one. Evidence be damned. They have also been supporting his false claims against Obama. Others here, including myself, are saying there is a trail of circumstantial evidence that must be followed. And on occasion, posting what that evidence is.

After all 6, Trump did make a foreign agent this countries national security advisor. If for no other reason, these investigations must proceed. We need to protect ourselves from that kind of stupidity, or treasonous behavior.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I'm not denying what you just said about Trump. I'm glad that there are checks and balances, especially when the Republicans have all of the power right now. It's never a good thing for any Americans when all of that power is consolidated either way.

I just wish the MSM might have brought up things like Obama handing over the keys to the Internet to the UN back in October. Most people today are still unaware that this even happened. If that were to happen under Trump they would have talked about it everyday for a month at least. So much stuff Obama did flew under the radar because he was the MSM's golden boy.


Now if we can find some candidates for the next election that aren't batshit crazy to the opposite polls of the spectrum, and we can be inclusive to white males and start kicking out Hate Speech against whites and males in places such as Universities, maybe we can get back to some more moderate politics and start unifying this country again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Obamabots target Trump and his campaign people for wiretapping, but dance and jump around the legalese terms of the law by claiming that they are "officially" targeting only foreign subjects who are most likely to be in phone conversations with the real targets, the Trump people. Only Libtards and other Democrats claim this is "normal" or "regular" or "common" practice, policy, or procedure. Practiced by every President all the way back to Benjamin Franklin's first term.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
There were all kinds of discussions on Net Neutrality. On MSN and other outlets. Here's why I lean towards what Obama was trying to do. Maybe you missed it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What's become clear (to me) is that there is an awful lot of "incidental" surveillance going on ...

... that under the guise of collecting intelligence on "foreign" targets, Americans with any sort of contact with ANY foreigner can be swept up under CIA/ NSA guidelines. It didn't matter if it was Trump at Mira Lago or Paul Stone talking to Guccifer 2.0 (after-the-fact) ... or your or I communicating with MAGONSDAUGHTER or BRENDA ... any foreign contact can be used as an excuse to monitor an American individual, since warrants aren't needed to surveil foreigners.

I'm surprised that nobody else seemed to notice. Ok, not surprised. Disappointed.

---

Quote:

---

But as usual, we only find out what the CIA/ NSA (and our other spooks) are doing AFTER they've been caught. Just like Obama was revealed by Snowden allowing the NSA to surveil Americans universally (*You DID know that, didn't you?*)

Quote:

---

In June 2013, reports from a cache of top secret documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its international partners had created a global system of surveillance that was responsible for the mass collection of information on American and foreign citizens. Obama initially defended NSA mass surveillance programs when they were first leaked.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance

I found a much more interesting source here
Obama-era Surveillance Timeline
https://sharylattkisson.com/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/

With the allegation that Trump Tower was "wiretapped" comes the whole sordid story of the ubiquity of our internal surveillance ... and a promise by the NSA not to do it again!

Quote:

---

NSA concedes violating surveillance limits and pledges curbs on US email collection


Amid an unexpected fight over US surveillance powers from congressional Republicans, the National Security Agency has agreed to curb its highly controversial collection of Americans’ emails that discuss foreign intelligence targets, although how comprehensive that stoppage is remains unclear.

According to a US official directly familiar with the decision, the NSA has agreed to cease so-called “about” surveillance under a critical 2008 legal authority, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa).

Yet the NSA has other authorities available to it for collecting substantial amounts of the same sort of American communications, including a Ronald Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333. The NSA has not indicated whether or not the “about” collection will cease wholesale, or merely migrate to a different legal authority.

Though the NSA continues to defend the legality of the surveillance it is curbing, it conceded on Friday that the decision follows an internal review that determined it violated constraints agreed to with a secret surveillance court. It called those violations “inadvertent”.

The US surveillance juggernaut has assured intelligence officials that it will limit its vast interception of US communications that transit the internet, known as “upstream” collection, under section 702 to those messages sent from or received by foreign intelligence targets.

It portrayed the decision, first reported by the New York Times, as an optional measure to protect Americans’ privacy, while not conceding a key point of its critics: that such “about” collection violated Americans’ constitutional rights to privacy.

Though the NSA continues to insist “about” collection is legal, the intelligence agency has pledged to delete the “vast majority of its upstream internet data”, it said in a statement.

“The changes in policy followed an in-house review of Section 702 activities in which NSA discovered several inadvertent compliance lapses”, the agency said, which it reported to Congress and the foreign intelligence surveillance court.

It is far from the first time the NSA has conceded that its vast surveillance powers under section 702, a surveillance authority expiring in December, have surpassed the boundaries set with the Fisa court.

A Fisa court decision from 2011, declassified in 2013, found that the agency had overcollected tens of thousands of purely domestic US emails in violation of the law, which permits warrantless interception of Americans’ international communications so long as one party to the communication is a foreigner overseas.

The NSA at the time represented the 702 overcollection as an unavoidable consequence of its collection technology – a limit it cited on Friday to warn that the agency could not fully purge its hoards of data that it now pledges no longer to collect.

“Because of the limits of its current technology, [NSA] is unable to completely eliminate ‘about’ communications from its upstream 702 collection without also excluding some of the relevant communications directly ‘to or from’ its foreign intelligence targets. That limitation remains even today,” it said.

Yet the NSA’s authorities under executive order 12333 are vast, undisclosed and unconstrained by any need to explain its collections to the Fisa court. A former state department official who has warned Congress about 12333, John Napier Tye, has alleged that the NSA uses 12333 as a backup plan to route around legal restrictions on US surveillance.

“To the extent US person information is either stored outside the United States, routed outside the United States, in transit outside the United States, it’s possible for it to be incidentally collected under 12333,” Tye told the Guardian in 2014.

It is unclear to sources briefed on the matter whether such surveillance routing to the executive order is in effect.

But the decision to limit collection under 702 comes amid an unexpected political backdrop: resistance to renewing the expiring statute by the congressional Republicans charged with championing it on Capitol Hill.

With the Trump administration incensed at leaks over its communications with Russian officials that it blames on US intelligence, Republicans on the House intelligence committee have openly warned NSA that they cannot guarantee the votes for renewing the controversial surveillance power without a leak crackdown.

Since 2008, the Republicans have typically led a defense of 702 powers, particularly against the revelations of widespread surveillance provided by Edward Snowden. But in a partisan reversal, intelligence-panel Democrats on Friday looked past the admitted NSA violations and called for the statute’s renewal.

“Going forward, I will continue to expect strict compliance with the Fisa court orders and will push for Section 702’s reauthorization along with any additional reforms needed to further strengthen and institutionalize protections for privacy and transparency,” said Adam Schiff of California, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

Schiff’s Senate counterpart, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, added: “I believe we can now look forward to Congress and, in particular, the Senate intelligence committee on which I serve as vice-chairman, quickly turning to the consideration and debate of this critical authority prior to its expiration set for December 31, 2017.”

Civil libertarians hailed the NSA decision while warning that surveillance checks need to go further.

“While we welcome the voluntary stopping of this practice, it’s clear that Section 702 must be reformed so that the government cannot collect this information in the future,” said Michelle Richardson of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/28/nsa-stops-surveillance
-us-residents-foreign-targets

Where have I heard THAT before? And I don't believe a word of it. NSA/ CIA/ DEA/ FBI etc etc draw their own restrictions so narrowly that there are a dozen ways to get aroudn them.

But "the people" ... us ... vaguely reassured that "they're" going to stop doing "something bad" that we were only vaguely aware of in the first place... go about our own business secure in the knowledge that "they" are respecting our rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Tough call. ICANN was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998, in the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in the Playa Vista neighborhood of Los Angeles. It's been doing the job since its inception. So, as I said, tough call. Globalization must be behind this decision.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
This is one of the reasons to post here... to hear ideas from other people, even if it's things you've already thought about for years but didn't put the puzzle pieces together.

Of course Obama didn't authorize a wire tap. He didn't need to. All of our phone calls are recorded and stored already... they just need a reason to listen to them. I don't even think it needs to be a good reason. I'd imagine it's along the same lines as the reason you would "need" medicinal marijuana.

That being said, they already have all of the conversations that Trump and all of his cronies have had with anybody going back probably as far as the Access Hollywood tape. If there was collaboration with Russia, show the proof please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
For one: I didn't say I thought it was ok.

2: How old are you? Seriously? Communications between individuals have changed greatly since that writing. Do you think any Intel agency doesn't have their own digital definition for "plain sight?" I'm sure they would say a digital data sweep that takes a split second, is not "unreasonable." Look how old the language is and do an update in your head - it's pretty basic.

And quit dodging simple questions:
"Flynn's discussions with the Russians? That's another matter. YOU, presumably a US citizen, should also really want to know what they were about - don't you?"

---