It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board finds NSA snooping lawful.

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

A White House panel examining the privacy and legal fallout from the massive National Security Agency spying revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden concluded that the snooping was lawful yet "close to the line of constitutional reasonableness."

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board said that the programs that tap undersea cables and acquire data from ISPs like Yahoo and Google with broad orders from a secret court are "authorized by Congress, reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and an extremely valuable and effective intelligence tool."

The 191-page report (PDF), released late Tuesday, was largely condemned by civil liberties advocates and scholars.


Shocking! Obama’s privacy board OKs massive NSA surveillance

While we're dutifully arguing partisan politics, the federal government, under the current and former administration, has dealt the most severe blow to the individual's right to privacy in our nation's history and now these clowns are organizing panels to condone their own actions.

The Fourth Amendment:

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.

There are very few among us who could imagine an interpretation of this text that wouldn't make illegal, wholesale spying on the public. The 1967 ruling by the SCOTUS in Katz v. United States, is cited as the modern interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that expanded an individual's right to privacy to include any area where an individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Specifically, the case was about a man, Charles Katz, who entered wagers from a phone booth to which the FBI had attached a listening device. The Judges ruled 7-1 in favor of Mr. Katz. From the above linked Wikipedia page for Katz v. United States:


Justice Harlan's concurring opinion summarizes the essential holdings of the majority: "(a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, and unlike a field, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (c) that an invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant."


This report is particularly disappointing given the same panel's report from January which was critical of the collection of telephone metadata and the one-sided process of petitioning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FSIC). In retrospect though, it seems the findings of this group are largely in line with the administration's publicly stated position.

I know it's cliched to say at this point, but allowing our basic civil liberties to be eroded to such an extent by this ill-conceived "War on Terror" has done exponentially more damage to society than any act of terror could possibly achieve.
edit on 2014-7-2 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
When you get to be the one who decides what is and is not lawful what is lawful ceases to have any value.

This is why storming the castle and putting heads on pikes is really the only option left.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
It's no wonder that Obama was just named worst president since WWII in a Quinnipiac poll...This administration has systematically reduced civil liberties in the US with the support of main stream media.

What I find most perplexing is how people can still support a president who not only continued the awful policies of Bush, but actually made them worse by equating legal American citizens with terrorism while opening doors and assisting thousands of illegal aliens across our border.

Obama and his cronies are more interested in rights for illegal aliens--while destroying rights of Americans, including LEGAL immigrants.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

As I have said before the Republican and Democrat Party are the wings of the same bird...although I'm thinking this administration has certainly a more Orwellian feel to it....what a shame....



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I put this report in the same category as the 9/11 Commission report.

That category being "to be used as toilet paper".



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The real question here is,
Did you really believe they would say it's NOT lawful to do?
Come on, there is being hopeful and then there is being plain naive



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

And anyone with a brain went . . . .

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

GUFFAWING TO THE MAX . . .

when they weren't crying over the death of the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
What did youse expect?....Ostritch feathers?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
So a White House panel determined that the White House didn't do anything unlawful.

Wouldn't that equate to the KKK determining that civil rights weren't being violated in the 50's?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

Wouldn't that equate to the KKK determining that civil rights weren't being violated in the 50's?


Hey, that's not fair. Nobodys rights were being violated. They were just being reasonably restricted with common sense regulation.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The White house panel.......This should be enough to make you wonder.


When TPTB no longer try and hide what they are doing it is scary. It means we are headed towards outright control. I think they are making a huge error in logic. I think......they think the American people are too cowardly and apathetic too speak out. I think the people are sitting back and a slow boil is happening across the country. Only time will tell.
What I think TPTB should do is back off and let this be a national secret again. I wonder how many leaders of these organizations have told them this also?



What happens when you mix............Millions of unemployed + A human swarm invading the southern border + The loss of privacy and liberty + Out of control currency inflation + Government controlled media + The loss of the ability to earn a living even while working hard. .........Scary is the only word that describes this all mixed together.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
The real question here is,
Did you really believe they would say it's NOT lawful to do?
Come on, there is being hopeful and then there is being plain naive


What can we expect from a panel of people appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate? At best, Senate confirmation confers some sense of impartiality in regards to partisanship but does little to address the interest of the public.

Simply put, any oversight body formed by the those who are to be overseen, no matter how well-intentioned, will always be subject to being a case of "the fox guarding the hen house." This is why these sorts of oversight committees, panels, etc are practically all but useless.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   


While we're dutifully arguing partisan politics, t


Alright lets go 'above' partisan politics.

Like:

Echelon:



ECHELON, originally a code-name, is now used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory nations to the UKUSA Security Agreement[1] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, referred to by a number of abbreviations, including AUSCANNZUKUS[1] and Five Eyes).[2][3][4] It has also been described as the only software system which controls the download and dissemination of the intercept of commercial satellite trunk communications.[5] It was created in the early 1960s to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War, and was formally established in the year of 1971.[6][7]


en.wikipedia.org...




The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.


en.wikipedia.org...

Before there were 'terrorists' there was communists.

The US government has been spying for a very LONG TIME.

And it has only been within the last two administrations has it become 'bad'.

Didn't start with W.

Didn't end with Obama.

They will never stop.

When it's in the name of' 'national security' amazing what becomes 'lawful'.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I agree completely and now it's not only eavesdropping on telecommunication satellites and radio frequencies but basically ALL communication which in the modern world includes a lot more non-verbal communication (e-mail, chat, etc) and the ability to harvest, filter, categorize, archive and aggregate all of this additional information.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

My biggest beef that people cry about 'right' to privacy.

And yet they support the ACA that picks up where the NSA leaves off with it's datahub.

Then they go Facebook/ Twitter their lives for the world to see.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zoyd23

The scary thing about is that in times past, presidents who have reduced our freedoms and civil liberties to this degree had names like FDR and Woodrow Wilson, and, yes, Abraham Lincoln. They did so in times of War.

Where is our war? Yes, we do have troops fighting, but I see nothing going on that compares to the Civil War or WWI or WWII. There isn't even anything to compare to the Cold War.

So what's the excuse for this again? And I fully admit that I can see monitoring activity coming and going from known problem numbers and sites in the ME, but just to tap all traffic between cell phones and the 'net wholesale? Please.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't even think there is a debate about this among the public. I'm aware of very few people outside of D.C. who think the ends justify the means.


There isn't even anything to compare to the Cold War.


From the beginning, it looked to me that the "War on Terror" was as an opportunity to dump money into funding the military—industrial complex and its huge intelligence gathering apparatus.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
My first issue is that whoever wrote the article in the OP doesn't know the difference between an ISP and a search engine. I hope the people who declared this lawful know the difference.

Beyond that, however....I would bet Pol Pot and Hitler declared their own actions to be lawful as well.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My first issue is that whoever wrote the article in the OP doesn't know the difference between an ISP and a search engine. I hope the people who declared this lawful know the difference.

Beyond that, however....I would bet Pol Pot and Hitler declared their own actions to be lawful as well.


To be fair to the author of the article, Google and Yahoo are much much more than search engines. They are two of the three largest email providers (#1 Google, #2 Microsoft, #3 Yahoo) and they have a dozens of other communications, social networking, online publishing and file hosting services (Google+, Google Hangouts, Google Voice, Youtube, Yahoo! Messenger, Flikr, Tumblr, etc etc).

But your point is duly noted. Of course, Google also announced plans a few months back to expand Google Fiber to another 34 cities (37 total I believe?) and Yahoo had a deal with SBC for co-branded broadband which I believe it now has with AT&T?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Here is why this happens.

Yesterday I wrote a law. Me. I wrote a law that says I am your god and you have do exactly what I say.

The next day you said, "hey, you are not my god." I showed you the law and the detailed language I had written it in, and you cried. Then you said, "I'll get a lawyer."

The following day I received a summons. You claimed something gave you "rights" and the law did not apply to you. I received a summery judgment from a court, one of my choosing that said, "the law says he is your god, as that what the law says, so, he is your god - nothing else matters." The law was clear.

The following day you did my laundry as I demanded you do.

Laws are written by men solely for the purpose of control over other men. That is the only reason for a law. The men who right the laws are the keepers of the laws, those who are subject to the laws are seen as "things", as such they have no inherent rights not given to them by the written law. It has ALWAYS been this way, we are only now seeing the real truth.

They interpret the laws they right, the men subject to them only admire the laws. The men who right the laws are not subject to the laws themselves in any meaningful way. In the last 50 years the "law" has become something of a freak show. A law is written and hours later folks "interpret it." Get that, they interpret something that is supposed to be a foundation.

Remedy comes in the form of "arguing" a law. Get that, if you want to be free from intrusion it is the LAW that YOU have prove you are not subject to intrusion. They only have to say "it is the law" and you have no way out. The immutable rule of law is this: Laws are seen by the governed as truth and inflexible, laws are seen by the law makers as nothing more then suggestions.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join