The NSA is collecting America’s phone data. Again.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Marley23

The black sites were closed down in 2009. I’ve said this before, but you would think people who are really concerned about these issues would pay attention to stuff like this.

The one at Bagram was exempted from closure and may still be open today.

[I_Made_French_Toast_For_You]

@babygoat666

You should read your own link.
<snip>
I’m still not going to defend it, but you’re conveniently misremembering facts. Try again.

My link says exactly what I said it would: Obama attacked Bush’s surveillance policies and championed privacy rights.

@Obama

But over the last six months, Americans have learned that the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans without judicial approval. We learned about this not from the Administration, but from the New York Times and USA Today. Every time a revelation came out, President Bush refused to answer questions from Congress.This is part of a general stance by this Administration that it can operate with no restraints. President Bush is interpreting Article II of the Constitution as giving him authority with no bounds.
<snip>
Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches - to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans.

Again I say: it’s understandable that people will be confused by his surveillance policy.

[Marley23]

@Obama

But over the last six months, Americans have learned that the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans without judicial approval.

This was done with judicial approval. The issue is whether this ought to be allowed and done at all, not ‘I sorta thought Obama was saying something else.’

[I_Made_French_Toast_For_You]

@Marley23

This was done with judicial approval. The issue is whether this ought to be allowed and done at all, not ‘I sorta thought Obama was saying something else.’

Right, I understand that. babygoat666 said earlier that it was naive for people to assume Obama would stop Bush’s NSA spying program, and I’ve been trying to explain why individuals (like myself) might be surprised it’s still in use, given his campaign of hope and change, statements he’s made, etc. It’s not an interesting tangent, though, so I’ll drop it.

[babygoat666]

@I_Made_French_Toast_For_You

My link says exactly what I said it would: Obama attacked Bush’s surveillance policies and championed privacy rights.

Again I say: it’s understandable that people will be confused by his surveillance policy.

Okay fine. Your link shows that Obama opposed surveillance being conducted unilaterally by the Executive branch. He still does. Do you have any links that pertain to this discussion?

[Diceman]

@Marley23

This was done with judicial approval. The issue is whether this ought to be allowed and done at all, not ‘I sorta thought Obama was saying something else.’

When the “judicial oversite” appears to be nothing more than an automatic rubber-stamp, it’s fair to question how much oversite really exists. Do we know if even one of these secret requests has ever been denied?

[babygoat666]

@I_Made_French_Toast_For_You

Right, I understand that. babygoat666 said earlier that it was naive for people to assume Obama would stop Bush’s NSA spying program, and I’ve been trying to explain why individuals (like myself) might be surprised it’s still in use, given his campaign of hope and change, statements he’s made, etc. It’s not an interesting tangent, though, so I’ll drop it.

Do you know what a campaign slogan is? Surely you see how it would be a problem for you to interpret them in your own unique way?

[I_Made_French_Toast_For_You]

@Diceman

When the “judicial oversite” appears to be nothing more than an automatic rubber-stamp, it’s fair to question how much oversite really exists. Do we know if even one of these secret requests has ever been denied?

I linked to a chart earlier that showed approvals in the thousands and denials in the single digits. The Guardian also has this quote about the phone data:

[Congressman] Feinstein went on to say she does not know how metadata of the kind collected under the Verizon court order is used.

Congressional oversight!

[Marley23]

@Diceman

When the “judicial oversite” appears to be nothing more than an automatic rubber-stamp, it’s fair to question how much oversite really exists.

Yes, it is. That’s one of the issues here - but that’d be an issue for Congress and the courts. Obama made a comment about a lack of oversight and he appears to be going through the required oversight process.

Do we know if even one of these secret requests has ever been denied?

By definition that’s hard to know, but the answer appears to be “rarely.”

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Marley23

Yes, it is. That’s one of the issues here - but that’d be an issue for Congress and the courts.

Only Congress and the courts? Why is it not an issue for Obama? Just because he has the power to do something doesn’t mean he should.

(I’m assuming that you’re not suggesting that it should not be an issue for us, the citizens subject to such surveillance. If I’m wrong, let me know because I’d be willing to address that.)

To be clear, I’m not sure whether I actually have an issue with these subpoenas. I’m still trying to think that through. But I’m not crazy about the idea that the President is free to do whatever he can without violating the law, and we should blame whoever let him do it.

[Evil_Captor]

@sciurophobic

Great. Now the NSA knows I call Domino’s more than I call my mother.

It’s Gitmom for you, for sure!

[Marley23]

@Age_Quod_Agis

Only Congress and the courts? Why is it not an issue for Obama? Just because he has the power to do something doesn’t mean he should.

The process required for approval this kind of data gathering is an issue for Congress and the courts. I don’t think Obama can change that process on his own.

[I_Made_French_Toast_For_You]

The New York Times is piiiiiissed. And I don’t blame them. If the DoJ secretly accessing the AP’s phone records was enough for a big scandal, surely the NSA accessing the records of the AP, the NYT, the Post, the LA Times, civil liberties groups, protest groups, Congressmen, CEOs, and the rest of America is enough for a big scandal.

Does specific targeting vs blanket targeting make an ethical or legal difference? And is the DoJ’s “search for a leak” reason more or less acceptable than the NSA’s “search for terrorists” reason?

[Baron_Greenback]

Washington Post and The Guardian both breaking news about PRISM. That programme doesn’t seem like it’s just about metadata?

Edit: Maybe it is.

[babygoat666]

I sincerely hope all this will amount to a change in policy, and if anyone’s working toward that then let’s get on board. If you want to sit around and keep yelling scandal, go pound sand.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Marley23

The process required for approval this kind of data gathering is an issue for Congress and the courts. I don’t think Obama can change that process on his own.

The Executive is a part of that process, too, since the Executive Branch is the one that asks for approval in the first place. Sure, Congress can limit the President’s powers, and the courts can turn down an individual request. But the President is still responsible for the manner in which he uses his powers.

“No one stopped me” is not a particularly effective defense.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Marley23

The process required for approval this kind of data gathering is an issue for Congress and the courts. I don’t think Obama can change that process on his own.

Since I’m apparently not being clear, here’s the NY Times making my point more effectively than I can. (from IMFTFY’s link)

Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.

…

We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the Bush administration’s surveillance policy “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”

As I said, I’m not ready to condemn this particular exercise of the Executive power. But if it’s an overreach, then I’m not willing to give Obama a pass, either.

[Marley23]

@Age_Quod_Agis

The Executive is a part of that process, too, since the Executive Branch is the one that asks for approval in the first place.

That’s a given. We were discussing the judicial oversight of those requests.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Marley23

That’s a given. We were discussing the judicial oversight of those requests.

Sorry. I’ll shut up now.

[Tom_Tildrum]

To clarify the OP, this is not a matter of “again” but of “still.” Sen. Feinstein says that this order is the routine quarterly renewal that has been obtained every three months since 2006.