NSA procedures allow the government to use data 'inadvertently' collected without a warrant

American Thinker ^ | 06/21/2013 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

Two things of note in this exclusive by the Guardian newspaper on the procedures followed by the NSA in collecting data from "non-US persons" as well as the accidental collection of communications from US citizens. First, as leaker Snowden observed, what's in these documents is "policy" not necessarily "practice." In other words, there are technical work arounds that analysts can use to examine your communications without a warrant. Snowden says it happens all the time despite the safeguards.

Secondly, it is frightening to see the court charged with protecting American's privacy, accede to NSA requests to use data despite it being "inadvertently" collected. The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:

• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;

• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;

• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;

• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine[s]" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.

The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials

[Gaffer]

Inadvertent means by mistake, unexpectedly, inauspiciously innocent, not premeditated....

It does not take the place of purposeful attempts to gather information regardless of the then-perceived value.

They, this government, are liars and tyrants.

[cuban leaf]

I used to work for the Law enforcement relations area of a large cell phone company. One of the things we had to be careful to do was make sure that we did not give someone information beyond the boundaries of what they asked for.

Sure, they may be able to use it but if the customer finds out they could sue us for giving up the data.

[SoFloFreeper]

Is this being mentioned AT ALL on the networks?

[cuban leaf]

By ‘what they asked for” I mean within the scope of the particular subpoena.

e.g., if we are responding to a subpoena that covers calls within a particular two weeks in a month but we give them the whole month, and then they find actionable information in some of the data the subpoena does not cover, it may result in legal action against the customer (it may not be admissable in court but it could point law enforcement to incriminating evidence they would not have known about) to whom the data belongs, but the customer could sue us for supplying the data.

And if it comes out that the government’s successful case was a direct result of this data, they whole case would probably be thrown out by an appeals judge.

[adorno]

Sounds like ALL communications are subject to being held in the NSA data warehouse, because, most any conversation or communication would tend to have one of the triggers, as explained in:

“...information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity’

Mention of Obama, or president, or White House, or congress, or a congressperson’s name, or terror, or bomb, or gun, or NSA, or Dept of Homeland Security, or Ahmadinejad, or Al-Qaeda, or election, or election fraud, or, well, you get it. It could be anything that people talk about on a daily basis, and your communication becomes part of the NSA files. So, the guidelines are all inclusive, which means that, everything is grabbed to be held and possibly be analyzed.

So, no need to clarify any further. Everything is being collected. No ifs, no ands, no buts, and no doubts.

[IronJack]

Their policies may allow it, but the Supreme Court has ruled such evidence “fruits of a tainted tree” and disallowed it — and all derivative evidence — from the courtroom.

[baddog 219]

Absolute power corrupts absolute.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What about when they do it accidentally on purpose?

[upchuck]

Rick Moran, Mr. Bookender.

Ever notice how most of his articles mostly consist of stuff from other sources? I wonder if he gets paid for that.

For example, in this article, the first three and last paragraphs (177 words) were written by him. The rest (371 words) was ripped off from the Guardian newspaper.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

They vet the enemy and it is us.

[zzwhale]

Lies, deceit, doubletalk, criminal actibity, lying under oath/// pretty much summarizes Obama and Holder and Napolitano and Mueller and Clapper and Clintoon/Kerry ... hey wait a minute ..JUST MAKE THAT THE ENTIRE OBAMA REGIME, as well as the libs in Congress and the Supreme Court that has exceeded it scope of the law and legislates from the bench... Obamacare being a case in point. Now Obama wasnts to and is sending aid to the Muslim Brotherhood which the #2 man in al queda (yes it is still thriving)is a member of and wants to arm al queda in syria ... isnt that TREASon... WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICAN WAITING FOR? IMPEACHMENT AND TRAIL FOR TREASON IS IN ORDER FOR HOLDER AND OBAMA...

[LostPassword]

If they have “inadvertently collected” enough data on members of congress and the media we’re really screwed (not that either of those groups cares much about us anyhow).

And, unless FISA judges have nothing to hide, the NSA will be able to get “permission” to do just about anything they want.

[OneWingedShark]

Their policies may allow it, but the Supreme Court has ruled such evidence “fruits of a tainted tree” and disallowed it — and all derivative evidence — from the courtroom.

I wonder how long they'll hold that position, especially since they ruled that any arrest (not conviction) might be grounds for taking a DNA sample.

[LostPassword]

not allowed in the courtrooms. but powerful in the back rooms. where they can pressure congress to ease up on oversight and FISA judges to be a little more liberal on giving permissions and media to keep it to themselves when there is a leak.

This program can go way beyond “stopping crime”. I see no reason to think the NSA would not use this data from this program to “protect” themselves and expand their power. And they’ll justify it to themselves (and whoever they blackmail) because it may stop a terrorist attack.

[CodeToad]

It is not inadvertent if they collect everything. Those massive data centers are not needed to hold “metadata” or the limited number of warranted data collections. They are designed to hold everything.

[IronJack]

The “poisoned tree” extension of the exclusionary rule dates from the 1920’s. To conservatives, that tenure gives it the weight of established law. To communists like the worthless pile of bull feces now occupying the White House, that may represent a legal precedent that has outlived its usefulness, particularly where it stands in the way of the leftist juggernaut.

Kinda like that pesky Constitution ...

[IronJack]

It is clear that any organization taking this stance is no respecter of citizen rights, the Constitution, or the rule of law. So it is illogical to assume that it would be reluctant to abuse its power to advance its own ends..