Spy agencies changed rules, making it easier to unmask members of Congress

More exposures coming out now about how Democrats in power were "able" to (possibly) "Legally" get at names of people who were caught up in conversations and communications with foreign suspects (especially "Russians" !).

Looks like the U.S. spy agencies under Obama somehow "Loosened up" the ways they could justify unmasking names of Americans.

It's all coming out slowly but surely.

More like "Shirley" Temple !!

The last Administration was doing all they could to ensure a Clinton victory and doubly-"insure" the dirty dirt would be buried forever.

Spy agencies changed rules, making it easier to unmask members of Congress

Former President Barack Obama’s intelligence chief issued revised procedures in 2013 that made it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of lawmakers or congressional staffers caught up in intelligence intercepts overseas, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Hill.

Procedures issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in March 2013 formally supplanted a 1992 set of rules that made the dissemination of names of intercepted lawmakers or congressional aides an act of last resort.

The new standard allowed for a lawmaker’s or staffer’s name to be unmasked if “an executive branch recipient of intelligence” believed that learning “the identity of the Member of Congress or the Congressional staff is necessary to understand and assess the associated intelligence and further a lawful activity of the recipient agency,” according to a memo released earlier this month by the DNI's office with little public fanfar

]| 2nd story ... |[


James Clapper eased rules on 'unmasking' procedures in 2013: Report

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper revised rules in 2013 in a way that made it easier to "unmask" the names of lawmakers or congressional staffers who are incidentally caught in foreign surveillance.

The new procedures implemented by Clapper uprooted the previous set of rules that had been in use for just over two decades, according to a report from The Hill.

Looks like Senator Rand Paul was dead-on when he said a couple months ago that the Obama Administration spied on him.

originally posted by: carewemust
Looks like Senator Rand Paul was dead-on when he said a couple months ago that the Obama Administration spied on him.

Yup.

He apparently understands the agenda.

a reply to: xuenchen

All I can say is GOOD. I'm glad they made it easier to unmask the identities of these people.
It they weren't doing anything wrong to begin with, they won't have any problems.
The right sure is worried about people seeing the dirty laundry all of a sudden. Not the fact that it's there, just the fact that someone made it easier to find. WAH WAH.

Where was all that concern about privacy and such--from republicans and democrats alike, I might add--when they rammed the Patriot Act through (without reading it)?

Cry me a river....

Elected officials shouldn't be shielded from our eyes. They are our employees.

originally posted by: Kali74
Elected officials shouldn't be shielded from our eyes. They are our employees.

Absolutely. Well said.

So all elected officials should be wire tapped?

Or just Republicans?

Having nothing to hide is one thing, however do you really trust that the creatures in DC wouldn't abuse this politically? I for one think that they not only will, but already have. I don't think a single one of them is above taking every advantage possible to get something they want...including blackmail. Also just because they are public servants does not absolve their 4th amendment rights does it?

a reply to: Gandalf77

Well many will agree.

Especially when Democrats are getting exposed all over the place.

As usual, the "Plan" backfired right back into the twig fire they started.

originally posted by: Kali74
Elected officials shouldn't be shielded from our eyes. They are our employees.

I think most of the "unmasking" showed to be non-elected people and "Private" Citizens.

welps

Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz an elected official?

Is she talking to people who are from a foreign nation?

Oh, yeah let's wire tap her too!

Just a thought!

So no issues with Trump listening to all outgoing/incoming calls then?

Then unmasking and/or tweeting the names and conversations of those he disapproves of.

Amirite?

originally posted by: 200Plus
So no issues with Trump listening to all outgoing/incoming calls then?

Then unmasking and/or tweeting the names and conversations of those he disapproves of.

Amirite?

Uhhh ... what?

a reply to: burntheships

Unmasking isn't wiretapping. It's revealing a person involved in something classified. Everyone is entitled to privacy. If a member of Congress is involved/suspected in criminal or corrupt behavior, we should be aware of it.

a reply to: xuenchen

i gurss i am confused
doesnt congress make these laws?
i didnt know clapper had this power
dni is APPOINTED not ELECTED correct?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burntheships

Unmasking isn't wiretapping. It's revealing a person involved in something classified. Everyone is entitled to privacy. If a member of Congress is involved/suspected in criminal or corrupt behavior, we should be aware of it.

Not nit picking, but the word "wiretap" is part of the FISA laws.

And Obama was already found to be the biggest violator
of privacy rights, and abuse of this surveillance law.

There was a thread here about it.

a reply to: burntheships

And Obama was already found to be the biggest violator of privacy rights, and abuse of this surveillance law. There was a thread here about it.

Wrote one myself.

"Unmasking" is a term used by the intelligence community that means revealing the identity of someone on a monitored communication.

Business Insider

Somewhere in the middle I guess. I stand by my original post.

a reply to: Kali74

Federal Wiretapping Surveillance Program

Warrantless domestic wiretapping program

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by The New York Times of an article[3] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002; a subsequent Bloomberg article[4] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000.

Provisions The subchapters of FISA provide for: Electronic surveillance (50 U.S.C. ch. 36, subch. I) Physical searches (50 U.S.C. ch. 36, subch. II) Pen registers and trap & trace devices for foreign intelligence purposes (50 U.S.C. ch. 36, subch. III) Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence purposes (50 U.S.C. ch. 36, subch. IV) Reporting requirement (50 U.S.C. ch. 36, subch. V)

And I stand by mine.

a reply to: xuenchen

this is quite disgusting and a far cry from what fisa laws were supposed to be
i still do not understand how the law can be changed by a cabinet appointee

this needs to be discussed when the 702 reappears for authorization

it appears no one outside the ic has enough respect for law to weild this power

Since the system was abused, they need to take away the powers of the spy agency to spy on us. No exceptions. There was a legal and binding agreement made when the law was passed giving them the power to collect this information. They tossed out all the rules, that is illegal. A lot of top officials need to go to prison.