NSA loophole allows warrantless search for US citizens' emails and phone calls

UK Guardian ^ | August 9, 2013 | James Ball and Spencer Ackerman

[don-o]

The National Security Agency has a secret backdoor into its vast databases under a legal authority enabling it to search for US citizens' email and phone calls without a warrant, according to a top-secret document passed to the Guardian by Edward Snowden.

[don-o]

Well, well.

Will WH Press Corpae get up to speed on this?

[don-o]

Press Corpse

[Travis McGee]

[unixfox]

The 4th Amendment doesn’t provide for loopholes!

Screw these tyrants, they can all go to hell!

[Blood of Tyrants]

There is no “loophole” in the law. There is only the law that gives them power to search.

[EEGator]

I thought you were writing in Latin.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[xzins]

Next we’ll discover that “direct communication” means 2, 3, 4 or 5 degrees of separation.

Terrorist talks to American. That persons communications are then subject to recording. He talks to person 1, and that’s 1 degree of separation. Person 1 talks to person 2, and that’s 2 degrees.

The argument will be that that’s how a “secret cell” operates. One layer doesn’t know the identity of any other layers, so therefore, they must collect a variety of layers.

The only question is how many layers. I’ve read that one American is only 5 degrees of separation from any other American. We all know somebody who knows somebody, etc.,

[LibLieSlayer]

Well, well, well... looks like Snowden is winning this battle... they call him a traitor and he releases secret documents proving that our government is a traitor.

LLS

[gaijin]

I read differently; I read that any person on Earth is 4.7 degrees of separation from ANY other person on the planet.

[OneWingedShark]

There is no loophole in the 4th Amendment: all unreasonable searches are prohibited. Period. Moreover, the requirement for a warrant is that probable cause is sworn to [under penalty of perjury] — this whole idea of "probable cause" being a way around the 4th's requirement for a warrant is bullshit… it is from here that these violations stem.

[RC one]

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.[/i>

[Vendome]

” The previously undisclosed rule change allows NSA operatives to hunt for individual Americans’ communications using their name or other identifying information.”

Guess it’s too much expecting The United States of America to uphold and defend The Constitution.

[OneWingedShark]

There is only the law that gives them power to search.

Such law contradicts the Constitution and is therefore void — see Maybury v. Madison.

[RC one]

1 second.

[EEGator]

Terrorist:

[edcoil]

Isn’t a loophole simply something not covered under law and a clarification is required by the court? There is really no such thing as a loophole it is either covered or not covered in the law.

[OneWingedShark]

Next we’ll discover that “direct communication” means 2, 3, 4 or 5 degrees of separation.
Terrorist talks to American. That persons communications are then subject to recording. He talks to person 1, and that’s 1 degree of separation. Person 1 talks to person 2, and that’s 2 degrees.
The argument will be that that’s how a “secret cell” operates. One layer doesn’t know the identity of any other layers, so therefore, they must collect a variety of layers.
The only question is how many layers. I’ve read that one American is only 5 degrees of separation from any other American. We all know somebody who knows somebody, etc.,

Close; here's how it goes:

1. Terrorist talks to Army interrogator.
2. Interrogator is part of Army; which is an organization.
3. Anyone with relatives in the Army, or is friends with anyone in the Army, or has ever served in the Army.
4. Anyone with any form of contact of the people in #3.

There. That's how they'll justify 'hops'.

[OneWingedShark]

Yep.
What I find sad is how many people, especially in the judiciary, are willing to sacrifice the 4th on the alters of “expedience” or “benefit of the doubt [for LEOs]”.

[don-o]

Bad choice of words - loophole. It’s a provision.