• NSA's mass surveillance includes credit card data, says Wall Street Journal
    27 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency's monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency's activities. The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.'s VZ +0.54% phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA's operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. T -1.01% and Sprint Nextel Corp., S -1.36% records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers. The agency is using its secret access to the communications of millions of Americans to target possible terrorists, said people familiar with the effort. The NSA's efforts have become institutionalized—yet not so well known to the public—under laws passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Most members of Congress defended them Thursday as a way to root out terrorism, but civil-liberties groups decried the program. "Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that is brand new,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who added that the phone-data program has "worked to prevent'' terrorist attacks. Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said the program is lawful and that it must be renewed by the secret U.S. court every three months. She said the revelation about Verizon, reported by the London-based newspaper the Guardian, seemed to coincide with its latest renewal. Civil-liberties advocates slammed the NSA's actions. "The most recent surveillance program is breathtaking. It shows absolutely no effort to narrow or tailor the surveillance of citizens," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. Meanwhile, the Obama administration acknowledged Thursday a secret NSA program dubbed Prism, which a senior administration official said targets only foreigners and was authorized under U.S. surveillance law. The Washington Post and the Guardian reported earlier Thursday the existence of the previously undisclosed program, which was described as providing the NSA and FBI direct access to server systems operated by tech companies that include Google Inc., GOOG +1.75% Apple Inc., AAPL +0.76% Facebook Inc., FB +1.40% Yahoo Inc., YHOO +3.17% Microsoft Corp. MSFT +2.03% and Skype. The newspapers, citing what they said was an internal NSA document, said the agencies received the contents of emails, file transfers and live chats of the companies' customers as part of their surveillance activities of foreigners whose activity online is routed through the U.S. The companies mentioned denied knowledge or participation in the program. The arrangement with Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, the country's three largest phone companies means, that every time the majority of Americans makes a call, NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation, according to people familiar with the matter. The practice, which evolved out of warrantless wiretapping programs begun after 2001, is now approved by all three branches of the U.S. government. AT&T has 107.3 million wireless customers and 31.2 million landline customers. Verizon has 98.9 million wireless customers and 22.2 million landline customers while Sprint has 55 million customers in total. NSA also obtains access to data from Internet service providers on Internet use such as data about email or website visits, several former officials said. NSA has established similar relationships with credit-card companies, three former officials said. It couldn't be determined if any of the Internet or credit-card arrangements are ongoing, as are the phone company efforts, or one-shot collection efforts. The credit-card firms, phone companies and NSA declined to comment for this article. Though extensive, the data collection effort doesn't entail monitoring the content of emails or what is said in phone calls, said people familiar with the matter. Investigators gain access to so-called metadata, telling them who is communicating, through what medium, when, and where they are located. But the disconnect between the program's supporters and detractors underscored the difficulty Congress has had navigating new technology, national security and privacy. The Obama administration, which inherited and embraced the program from the George W. Bush administration, moved Thursday to forcefully defend it. White House spokesman Josh Earnest called it "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats." But Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), said he has warned about the breadth of the program for years, but only obliquely because of classification restrictions. "When law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information," he said. "Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans' privacy." In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, phone records were collected without a court order as a component of the Bush-era warrantless surveillance program authorized by the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which permitted the collection of business records, former officials said. The ad hoc nature of the NSA program changed after the Bush administration came under criticism for its handling of a separate, warrantless NSA eavesdropping program. President Bush acknowledged its existence in late 2005, calling it the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP. When Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006, promising to investigate the administration's counterterrorism policies, Bush administration officials moved to formalize court oversight of the NSA programs, according to former U.S. officials. Congress in 2006 also made changes to the Patriot Act that made it easier for the government to collect phone-subscriber data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Those changes helped the NSA collection program become institutionalized, rather than one conducted only under the authority of the president, said people familiar with the program. Along with the TSP, the NSA collection of phone company customer data was put under the jurisdiction of a secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to officials. David Kris, a former top national security lawyer at the Justice Department, told a congressional hearing in 2009 that the government first used the so-called business records authority in 2004. At the time he was urging the reauthorization of the business-records provisions, known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which Congress later approved. The phone records allow investigators to establish a database used to run queries when there is "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the records are relevant and related to terrorist activity, Ms. Feinstein said Thursday. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also issued a defense of the phone data surveillance program, saying it is governed by a "robust legal regime." Under the court order, the data can only "be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization." When the data is searched, all information acquired is "subject to strict restrictions on handling" overseen by the Justice Department and the surveillance court, and the program is reviewed roughly every 90 days, he said. Another U.S. official said less than 1% of the records are accessed. The database allows investigators to "map" individuals connected with that information, said Jeremy Bash, who until recently was chief of staff at the Pentagon and is a former chief counsel to the House Intelligence committee. "We are trying to find a needle in a haystack, and this is the haystack," Mr. Bash said, referring to the database. Sen. Wyden on Thursday questioned whether U.S. officials have been truthful in public descriptions of the program. In March, Mr. Wyden noted, he questioned Mr. Clapper, who said the NSA did not "wittingly" collect any type of data pertaining to millions Americans. Spokesmen for Mr. Clapper didn't respond to requests for comment. For civil libertarians, this week's disclosure of the court authorization for part of the NSA program could offer new avenues for challenges. Federal courts largely have rebuffed efforts that target NSA surveillance programs, in part because no one could prove the information was being collected. The government, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has successfully used its state-secrets privilege to block such lawsuits. Jameel Jaffer, the American Civil Liberties Union's deputy legal director, said the fact the FISA court record has now become public could give phone-company customers standing to bring a lawsuit. "Now we have a set of people who can show they have been monitored," he said.[/quote] [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922]Source[/url] [quote][B]"Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that is brand new,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid[/B] (D., Nev.)[/quote] [B]WHAT. THE. FUCK.[/B] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY[/media]
That explains the WITHDRAW - $1,200,000,000 DESCRIPTION - F35 PRGM in my last bank statement.
[QUOTE]"Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that is brand new,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.)[/QUOTE] Why does that make it any better?
This man buys too many dragon dildos, it's suspicious. [i]Detain him[/i]
[quote]"Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that is brand new,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who added that the phone-data program has "worked to prevent'' terrorist attacks. [/quote] I've heard similar things like this multiple times now. What the fuck kind of thing is that to say? Just because it's "not something new" doesn't make it okay.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;40954855]This man buys too many dragon dildos, it's suspicious. [i]Detain him[/i][/QUOTE] no one [I]needs[/I] 20 horse cock and dragon dildos
Don't worry guys, we've been spying on you for AGES. That makes it fine, right? No, it just confirms all the bullshit, and proves that you've been lying through your fucking teeth. I don't even live in America and my brain hurts from this arsewater. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40954887]no one [I]needs[/I] 20 horse cock and dragon dildos[/QUOTE] If I say I need 20 horse cocks, I need 20 horse cocks, damnit!
[QUOTE=Trainbike;40954860]I've heard similar things like this multiple times now. What the fuck kind of thing is that to say? Just because it's "not something new" doesn't make it okay.[/QUOTE] But apparently it hasn't been a problem in 12 years
This guy is buying bitcoins, let's kill him or arrest him or something.
[QUOTE=scout1;40954932]But apparently it hasn't been a problem in 12 years[/QUOTE] Because no one knew. The only indication to these were NSA whistleblowers/ex-employees, unnamed government sources etc. - nothing confirmed. This is the first time the government has admitted to massive online surveillance and data mining. The fact they've been doing this under our nose for some time doesn't suddenly mean it's OK.
This is absolutely huge. I hope for everyone's sake the fallout from this is massive and that it doesn't quietly fall out of the public's mind. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Brt5470;40954989]This guy is buying bitcoins, let's kill him or arrest him or something.[/QUOTE] Who knows, there was a massive bust by US authorities recently against Liberty Reserve, which dealt with digital currencies.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40955069]Because no one knew. The only indication to these were NSA whistleblowers/ex-employees, unnamed government sources etc. - nothing confirmed. This is the first time the government has admitted to massive online surveillance and data mining. The fact they've been doing this under our nose for some time doesn't suddenly mean it's OK.[/QUOTE] Yet apparently it has done absolutely nothing to inconvenience or compromise any citizens. They just don't like it.
[QUOTE=scout1;40955214]Yet apparently it has done absolutely nothing to inconvenience or compromise any citizens. They just don't like it.[/QUOTE] doesn't matter, the government is doing illegal things to it's citizens
[QUOTE=scout1;40955214]Yet apparently it has done absolutely nothing to inconvenience or compromise any citizens. They just don't like it.[/QUOTE] So it's ok to do this as long as it doesn't serve as an inconvenience to us? This is extremely illegal and an invasion to our privacy here.
For everyone saying this isn't a big deal this country was founded on rights that protect its people from these types of things, there woukd be a fullscale rebellion if the gov. did something to this extent back then. yet much more than half of the population will either shrug it off or not even hear of this
[quote]"Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that is brand new,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.)[/quote] [B]Calm down citizens. All is well. Shut up. Be happy. Everything is done for you.[/B]
And watch as Fox is the only one to continue to cover this. (hopes not)
[QUOTE=Glaber;40959094]And watch as Fox is the only one to continue to cover this. (hopes not)[/QUOTE] For once they wouldn't be talking bullshit.
I just realized that with this new information, my recent researching of the extent of the government's online surveillance plus me having a program on my computer called terrorism simulator 2014 might not look so good for me.
[QUOTE=Amez;40955362]So it's ok to do this as long as it doesn't serve as an inconvenience to us? This is extremely illegal and an invasion to our privacy here.[/QUOTE] Frankly, dear, I don't give a damn that you feel [I]bad[/I] about something when it is reasoned to give a real, practical benefit.
[QUOTE=scout1;40960458]Frankly, dear, I don't give a damn that you feel [I]bad[/I] about something when it gives a real, practical benefit.[/QUOTE] The problem is: what's the benefit? I'm not going to do that rehashed privacy v. security thing. If the NSA came out with a fucking textbook-thick list of attacks this stopped with solid backing, maybe I'd be a bit more lenient. But all I'm seeing is an absolutely fucking massive and all encompassing data collection, on all fronts, of American citizens. And hell, probably non-Americans too. Not only is it in absolutely brazen violation of the Constitution, it also [I]really[/I] doesn't help when a senator goes "lol, we've been doing it for awhile chumps, calm down, k?"
It only takes one corrupt official to put us all in danger... there are probably more than 400,000 [QUOTE]The phone records allow investigators to establish a database used to run queries when there is "reasonable, articulable suspicion" [/QUOTE] I feel sorry for anybody with Brown skin in the US right now.
The fact is if someone, or some group, want's to be a threat to national security, if they're quiet enough about it/smart enough about it, they'll most likely be able to pull off what ever stunt they want. Look at the Boston bombings for example, that was pulled off by a couple of kids basically. Government using our fear to invade our privacy is all just a big excuse to be nosy. Oh yeah, it's also unconstitutional and illegal. If they've been doing it under our nose this whole time, how many threats have they actually infiltrated and stopped? Do we have at least a right to know if this invasion of privacy is doing anything for us? Also, government just saw me type this.
I honestly only blazed though the article and read the footnotes, but from what it seems the NSA is monitoring people online. My question is, hasn't Google been doing this for a long time? I pretty sure that monitoring credit card transactions is mandatory by companies like Amazon and that they can (and maybe will, depending on buying habits) report you to the government. I don't know, I am just not phased by this. I am not by any means a conspiracy theorist, but after they took down Megaupload I just assumed the government was [I]always[/I] monitoring us. It just doesn't surprise me.
[QUOTE=Doom14;40960889]The problem is: what's the benefit? I'm not going to do that rehashed privacy v. security thing. If the NSA came out with a fucking textbook-thick list of attacks this stopped with solid backing, maybe I'd be a bit more lenient. But all I'm seeing is an absolutely fucking massive and all encompassing data collection, on all fronts, of American citizens. And hell, probably non-Americans too. Not only is it in absolutely brazen violation of the Constitution, it also [I]really[/I] doesn't help when a senator goes "lol, we've been doing it for awhile chumps, calm down, k?"[/QUOTE] 1) One attack is plenty, given the only objection is that people don't like it. (Although financially and logistically it may not be worth it, that's an entire 'nother discussion). 2) I dare do argue as would the administration and lawyers on their pay who know far more than me that this is allowed by the constitution. Mostly that the Supreme court hasn't said it's not allowed, and so until then the government has basically free reign on it unless it's an egregious violation. Don't like it? Bring suit. 3) He's saying to calm down for a very specific reason. It's happened going on 12 years now. Nobody was harmed. Nobody was inconvenienced. Nobody had an ounce of whiff to complain about it, except that they now know about it and find it objectionable to their persons. That is currently the only complaint I hear except that it may be against the constitution and as per point 2, you'll have to raise that in a court. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePanther;40961552]The fact is if someone, or some group, want's to be a threat to national security, if they're quiet enough about it/smart enough about it, they'll most likely be able to pull off what ever stunt they want. Look at the Boston bombings for example, that was pulled off by a couple of kids basically. [/QUOTE] Yes, there is little to no way to stop the "lone wolf". That is not what this intends to prevent, as they are but a small subsection. [QUOTE=ThePanther;40961552]Government using our fear to invade our privacy is all just a big excuse to be nosy. Oh yeah, it's also unconstitutional and illegal. If they've been doing it under our nose this whole time, how many threats have they actually infiltrated and stopped? Do we have at least a right to know if this invasion of privacy is doing anything for us?[/QUOTE] If the government wanted to "just be nosy" they could do it in a lot and better ways. This is a matter of different priorities, not malevolence. But go ahead and keep that adversarial attitude with the government, see how far that gets you. OR you can work with them, file suit and go through the motions, file a freedom of information request and try to find out. Do something. Otherwise all you are doing is complaining on the internet forum comprised mostly of people who agree with you and all that is going to do is make you feel slightly better at the end of the day. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] Good news for you gentlemen, I hear suit was brought against the government. Bad news. It's by Rand Paul.
IT'S HAPPENING!!! Image Doom Paul because facepunch won't let me post because he is a image macro. Please demarco Doom Paul the savior of Earth
[QUOTE=scout1;40963525]1) One attack is plenty, given the only objection is that people don't like it. (Although financially and logistically it may not be worth it, that's an entire 'nother discussion).[/QUOTE]I don't care if it prevents one, or if it prevents a hundred. Find another way, because this is not the right way.[QUOTE=scout1;40963525]2) I dare do argue as would the administration and lawyers on their pay who know far more than me that this is allowed by the constitution. Mostly that the Supreme court hasn't said it's not allowed, and so until then the government has basically free reign on it unless it's an egregious violation. Don't like it? Bring suit.[/QUOTE]Seriously, it was plainly stated that the government has used it's "it's classified, lol" get-out-of-jail card. This is [b]VERY VERY VERY NOT OKAY[/b] because it's fucking with the most basic structure of our government. You know, the whole "separation of powers" part? Yeah, that's just as important as the bill of rights.[QUOTE=scout1;40963525]3) He's saying to calm down for a very specific reason. It's happened going on 12 years now. Nobody was harmed. Nobody was inconvenienced. Nobody had an ounce of whiff to complain about it, except that they now know about it and find it objectionable to their persons. That is currently the only complaint I hear except that it may be against the constitution and as per point 2, you'll have to raise that in a court.[/QUOTE]I have been complaining about this for years, and we've all [i]known[/i] that this was happening, but couldn't prove it because LOLOL CLASSIFIED. Again, it's not even about the constitution, it's about the fundamental principles of our government being fucked with. Of all the branches to do it, the executive branch basically stonewalling the judicial branch from telling them to knock it off is really, [i]really,[/i] bad.
[QUOTE=scout1;40960458]Frankly, dear, I don't give a damn that you feel [I]bad[/I] about something when it is reasoned to give a real, practical benefit.[/QUOTE] Well frankly dear, I don't give a damn about your opinion when you're blatantly ignoring the implications of such a program. You're starting to go into threads in order to incite flame wars by posting shit like this, you know where that made you end up. Quit it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.