It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Spy agencies historically avoided domestic operations out of concern for Pentagon regulations and Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333, that restricted intelligence collection on American citizens and companies. Its budget, like all intelligence agencies, is classified. On Clapper's watch of the last five years, his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires. With help, the agency can also zoom in. Its officials cooperate with private groups, such as hotel security, to get access to footage of a lobby or ballroom. That video can then be linked with mapping and graphical data to help secure events or take action, if a hostage situation or other catastrophe happens.
Privacy advocates wonder how much the agency picks up -- and stores. Many are increasingly skeptical of intelligence agencies with recent revelations about the Bush administration's surveillance on phone calls and e-mails. Among the government's most closely guarded secrets, the quality of pictures NGA receives from classified satellites is believed to far exceed the one-meter resolution available commercially. That means they can take a satellite "snapshot" from high above the atmosphere that is crisply detailed down to one meter level, which is 3.3 feet.
Originally posted by EntheEnd
"Oh no! They're listening to what I say on the telephone! Can't talk to Ralph anymore about bombing the white house..."
If it's freedom, what freedom are you losing? Is it illegal? How can it be when that evil, evil Patriot Act allows such tactics?
Originally posted by zenlover28
Grim, do you honestly think the government keeps records of every citizen in the U.S. in one file? That's really what i'm gathering from your posts. It's really not that simple. Again, you are giving the government way too much credit.
Again, the political rhetoric did not accomplish what the Left wanted it too, thus we have continuous leaks of information and security breaches which REALLY should be the concern here. The facts are being twisted and it's easy to see that. And they are being twisted to accomplish only one thing, a Democratic Revolution in the House and Senate much like the one that happened in the 90's by the Republicans.
Nope, not surprised at all. But, the past is the past. We have to live in the present. Is it our fault? Probably to some extent, but the fact of the matter is that this is now and that was then. The majority of people around here acts as if the government is one big spectrum of people all conglomerating to take over the world. It's just not that simple in any respect. The U.S. government will look out for the U.S. interests. Just as Dems and Repubs will look out for their interests. If we bent over and took it up the rear just because we did this or that back then well then, we'd really be in trouble. There are clearly disturbing factors about our past and present relationships with the Middle East, however the same can be said about many other places in the world.
Originally quoted by zenlover28
Ceci, hun I realize what the amendments say, but they are not GUARANTEED rights to privacy or civil liberties which was the issue we were getting at. Our founding fathers left it up to interpretation and therefore the interpretation of it is based upon CASE LAW.
Again, show me where the law has been broken, that is the issue.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
CCR Files Suit over NSA Domestic Spying Program
In New York, on January 17, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against President George W. Bush, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA’s surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization. The suit seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless surveillance of communications in the U.S. CCR filed the suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the criteria described by the Attorney General for targeting under the NSA Surveillance Program.
As has been widely reported, for over four years the NSA, with the approval of the president, has engaged in a program of widespread warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The suit argues that the NSA Surveillance Program violates a clear criminal law, exceeds the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution, and violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act explicitly authorizes foreign intelligence electronic surveillance only upon orders issued by federal judges on a special court. It expressly authorizes warrantless wiretapping only for the first fifteen days of a war, and makes it a crime to engage in wiretapping without specific statutory authority. Rather than seeking to amend this statute, the president simply violated it by authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans without statutory authority or court approval. As a result, the President violated his oath of office to take care that the laws of this nation are faithfully executed, and instead secretly violated a criminal prohibition duly enacted by Congress.
Originally posted by ceci2006
3)The right to keep personal effects without them being seized by authorites unless there is a warrant (4th Amendment)
The President has referred to an NSA program, which he authorized, directed against al-Qaeda. Because that program is highly classified, Widgets cannot comment on that program, nor can we confirm or deny whether we have had any relationship to it.
Having said that, there have been factual errors in press coverage about the way Widgets handles customer information in general. Widgets puts the interests of our customers first and has a longstanding commitment to vigorously safeguard our customers’ privacy -- a commitment we’ve highlighted in our privacy principles, which are available at (link removed).
Widgets will provide customer information to a government agency only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes. When information is provided, Widgets seeks to ensure it is properly used for that purpose and is subject to appropriate safeguards against improper use. Widgets does not, and will not, provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.
Widgets hopes that the Administration and the Congress can come together and agree on a process in an appropriate setting, and with safeguards for protecting classified information, to examine any issues that have been raised about the program. Widgets is fully prepared to participate in such a process.
Here's an example, below. Can you tell which cluster is from a Fortune 500 company, and which one is from Al-Qaeda? Network analysis guru Valdis Krebs shows this slide to corporate and government audiences. Their answers are usually pretty scattershot.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
Originally posted by ceci2006
just because a law is passed doesn't make it right. People tend to forget the social and moral implications of what the government is doing. And some segments of the population--in the guise of safety--will do anything the government tells them to do without thinking about how it effects other citizens in the United States.
I find it appalling that people would rather give up their privacy and civil liberties just to placate those in government who sit at the upper echleon of power.