SOPA - Internet as we know it about to be gone?

[mrcash2009 0]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044581/lawmakers-nsa-phone-records-collection-violated-law.html

Lawmakers: NSA phone records collection violated law

The U.S. National Security Agency and Department of Justice exceeded their legal authority to conduct surveillance when collecting the telephone records of millions of U.S. residents, several U.S. lawmakers said Wednesday.

Interesting about the update and changes to the Patriot act becuase that had no bearing on any of this from 2001 onwards as a foundation, interesting in how its changed for one thing.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044581/lawmakers-nsa-phone-records-collection-violated-law.html

Interesting about the update and changes to the Patriot act becuase that had no bearing on any of this from 2001 onwards as a foundation, interesting in how its changed for one thing.

Not sure what you mean there?

“We never, at any point in this debate, have approved the type of unchecked, sweeping surveillance of United States citizens employed by our government,†[Representative John Conyers Jr.] said during a hearing on the NSA.

Oh yes you did and it is checked?!! Full text of what he said here @17/07/13 22:31

http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/rss.xml

I can't see where Representative Conyers Jr. gets his ideas from, was he asleep for the past 8 years? It's clearly legal and you can read it for yourself. It's no good setting up a legal framework and then blaming the NSA for following it? The Act states:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`©(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and

`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf

Not a 4th ammendment issue, no warrant required for records metadata:

"case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register [phone records] was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

The NSA explanation:

So the first of the programs that I want to talk about that was leaked to the press is what’s been called Section 215, or business record collection. It’s called Section 215 because that was the section of the Patriot Act that put the current version of that statute into place. And under that – this statute, we collect telephone metadata, using a court order which is authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under a provision which allows a government to obtain business records for intelligence and counterterrorism purposes. Now, by metadata, in this context, I mean data that describes the phone calls, such as the telephone number making the call, the telephone number dialed, the data and time the call was made and the length of the call. These are business records of the telephone companies in question, which is why they can be collected under this provision.

Despite what you may have read about this program, we do not collect the content of any communications under this program. We do not collect the identity of any participant to any communication under this program. And while there seems to have been some confusion about this as recently as today, I want to make perfectly clear we do not collect cellphone location information under this program, either GPS information or cell site tower information. I’m not sure why it’s been so hard to get people to understand that because it’s been said repeatedly.

When the court approves collection under this statute, it issues two orders. One order, which is the one that was leaked, is an order to providers directing them to turn the relevant information over to the government. The other order, which was not leaked, is the order that spells out the limitations on what we can do with the information after it’s been collected, who has access, what purposes they can access it for and how long it can be retained.

Some people have expressed concern, which is quite a valid concern in the abstract, that if you collect large quantities of metadata about telephone calls, you could subject it to sophisticated analysis, and using those kind of analytical tools, you can derive a lot of information about people that would otherwise not be discoverable.

The fact is, we are specifically not allowed to do that kind of analysis of this data, and we don’t do it. The metadata that is acquired and kept under this program can only be queried when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that a particular telephone number is associated with specified foreign terrorist organizations. And the only purpose for which we can make that query is to identify contacts. All that we get under this program, all that we collect, is metadata. So all that we get back from one of these queries is metadata.

Each determination of a reasonable suspicion under this program must be documented and approved, and only a small portion of the data that is collected is ever actually reviewed, because the vast majority of that data is never going to be responsive to one of these terrorism-related queries.

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/speeches-and-interviews/195-speeches-interviews-2013/887-transcript-newseum-special-program-nsa-surveillance-leaks-facts-and-fiction?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czo1OiJwcmlzbSI7fQ==

In 2012, NSA analysts ran queries on fewer than 300 telephone numbers

@ MrCash do you think the part in your reference about 300 numbers is true or not?

Edited July 22, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[mrcash2009 0]

@ MrCash do you think the part in your reference about 300 numbers is true or not?

I posted for other peoples reference and the thread only & the patriot act ref.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23374867

Apple, Google and other tech giants demand spying openness

Coming from google this is quite funny, I wonder if this is a step in the right direction or simply a box to post what's needed to be shown to be doing something?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23367751

Data requests by UK authorities rose in 2012

UK authorities increased the number of requests they made about the public’s use of texts, emails and other communications data last year, an official report has revealed.

http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/2012%20Annual%20Report%20of%20the%20Interception%20of%20Communications%20Commissioner%20WEB.pdf

The sections of "when can this power be used" I find an interesting read.

Some more DVLA fun (they pop up allot):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374229

DVLA considers launching inquiry into peer’s litterbug claims

The DVLA is considering launching an inquiry after a peer said he tracked down litter louts with help from “friends†at the organisation.

Edited July 22, 2013 by mrcash2009

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Some more DVLA fun (they pop up allot):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374229

Have some dancing bananas you finally found 1 location where the largest abuses of privacy occur :yay:

Now check out the NHS medical records database and the Police National Computer. If you attend the right dinner parties you would be amazed at just what information they look up for fun and what they will reveal after a few drinks. It doesn't happen so often now, too many being fired or sent to prison for looking up data and selling it to the press. They do snoop on their neighbours though which shouldn't be allowed either. The NHS is widely known as the biggest offender for data insecurity in the UK public services. The press seem to resist reporting on it, it's their largest source of information on celebs and others. That is why many insist on private medical treatment, the added benefit apart from immediate service is the privacy.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[mrcash2009 0]

Have some dancing bananas you finally found 1 location where the largest abuses of privacy occur

Sorry I heard a condescending noise? Anyone, did anyone else hear it?

Wow the 'thread moderator' accepted a submission, low level of course ... of course, it has to be low level.

If you attend the right dinner parties you would be amazed at just what information they look up for fun and what they will reveal after a few drinks. It doesn't happen so often now, too many being fired or sent to prison for looking up data and selling it to the press

Ever been?

Edited July 22, 2013 by mrcash2009

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Sorry I heard a condescending noise? Anyone, did anyone else hear it?

Wow the thread moderator accepted a submission, low level of course ... of course it has to be low level.

I accept anything truthful, that is what I said yesterday? Post something that is actually true and I will not be able to disagree....

Ever been?

Yes, that's why I can't provide a link, I heard it.

edit: RE below - I posted that last week, page 2 of the pdf on the Intelligence & Security Committee ;) The Guardian doesn't eat it's words much does it?, the report was a direct response to it's unfounded alligations! I suppose that passes for a retraction there lol? edit2: NVM oops he changed it to a different story from RT rofl.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?128877-SOPA-Internet-as-we-know-it-about-to-be-gone&p=2443168&viewfull=1#post2443168

https://b1cba9b3-a-5e6631fd-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/independent.gov.uk/isc/files/20130717_ISC_statement_GCHQ.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coHCoAPcYqluULl4PmE324GRzxcsvsmBU5txtR1xFjGWX5W3RzGe4oyOs7dueoPUOW4bti_GJ3OnEwtk-DNFnUOfD1PJIuwWBxTsIuk_ph_NkfzA-zR-wBczRTSB3J6dvvEjYSzFaQmfxXb7EQekatqq6GPpmzV8daDR3SObNuQU1Z6Sd7Wmbg2Y3uS4nMiwt7ukW2ABaQCmyelCuHHSSpB0BApP744Hx6-kLcLqov4VfnXqWA%3D&attredirects=0

Edited July 22, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[mrcash2009 0]

Post something that is actually true and I will not be able to disagree....

No, "I" think "I" will post what "I" wish within the forum rules as a poster of a topic and not loose much sleep at all on whether you as an individual agree or not, all things considered.

http://rt.com/usa/fisa-court-renew-authority-340/

FISA court renews NSA surveillance program

http://rt.com/usa/snowden-leak-nsa-overhaul-303/

Snowden sparks NSA overhaul: Sensitive data to be treated like nuclear weapons

Some Irony here.

The Guardian doesn't eat it's words much does it?, the report was a direct response to it's unfounded alligations!

Decoded: Damage limitation went into full swing as normal.

Edited July 22, 2013 by mrcash2009
225

[nettrucker 142]

On Friday, the Obama administration announced that it had sought—and the secret FISA court had granted—a renewed authorization for the NSA spying program that compels US telecommunications companies to turn over their telephone records in bulk.

“Consistent with his prior declassification decision and in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence] has decided to declassify and disclose publicly that the Government filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and that the Court renewed that authority,†the Obama administration press release stated.

Here's the link to the full article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fisa-court-renews-nsa-spying-program/5343617

Our governments will extend their spying in the next years to come even more.

[Peacewalker 10]

would be awful -.-

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Here's the link to the full article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fisa-court-renews-nsa-spying-program/5343617

Our governments will extend their spying in the next years to come even more.

Global research displaying staggering ignorance of the law again? Perhaps that is why so many liberal legal challenges fail - they don't understand how the law works and continue to tailor interpretations of the constitution to further their agenda? The Supreme Court thows out their cases all the time because they have dubious legal foundations and asshat reasoning.

Also this headline, as usual, is hyped. Under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) they have to request an extension every 90 days for 'pen register' (phone record) information. It's a part of the oversight system and prevents unlimited collection - they have to justify the extension of the order before a judge. Odd how this is hyped as something sinister simply because they have declassified it ROFL.

Why phone record metadata isn't a 4th Ammendment issue:

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Background

In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

(A pen register is an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line, the original term for a device that collects phone records)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Congress votes on the issue:

Congress voted yesterday on an ammendment to revoke funding for programs under Section 215 of the Patriot Act which would stop the collection of metadata. That metadata includes numbers dialed, numbers of incoming calls, times of the calls, and routing information but not call content. The ammendment failed in a close vote. The representative Justin Amash who proposed the bill also makes the same mistakes as Global Research in using the 4th Ammendment argument when it doesn't really apply? He is certainly intelligent enough to know he isn't being factual, so what is his motivation for the deception?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

Edited July 25, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

Looks like New zealand gone step up its surveillance,

http://rt.com/news/new-zealand-surveillance-law-controversy-501/,

New Zealand lawmakers say they now have enough votes to pass a controversial bill that will expand the government’s power, authorizing the interception of private communications in the name of national security.

,

If passed into law, more power would be given to New Zealand’s domestic and foreign intelligence agencies - the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). Lawmakers have said that both spy agencies need more resources and less legal restrictions to protect national security, as well as New Zealand’s international relations and economy.

the less legal restrictions for national security is the key; same message :give up your freedoms for security!

Seems more and more our governments are stepping up there efforts to get more "control" over the net, prepare to see this message "error 404 page not found"while surfing the net!

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Bizarre logic? The two things aren't connected? If you can't browse, they can't spy on your browsing, so your reasoning doesn't make sense? The bill, if you actually read it, places more legal restrictions on the agency, not less and defines oversight and controls that were not previously in place. So also doubt the accuracy of that? The controversy is over the expansion of it's remit to include NZ citizens and residents.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[nettrucker 142]

The German foreign intelligence service knew more about the activities of the NSA in Germany than previously known. "They're in bed together," Edward Snowden claims in an interview in SPIEGEL. The whistleblower also lodges fresh allegations against the British.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/whistleblower-snowden-claims-german-intelligence-in-bed-with-nsa-a-909904.html

Make no mistake it's going to get worse in the near future.

[mrcash2009 0]

Posting for ref:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23522565

US declassifies phone-snooping order

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Interesting info there:

The XKeyscore system is continuously collecting so much internet data that it can be stored only for short periods of time. Content remains on the system for only three to five days, while metadata is stored for 30 days. One document explains: "At some sites, the amount of data we receive per day (20+ terabytes) can only be stored for as little as 24 hours."

Shows they are targetting specific people, as said many, many times they can't analyse or read it all.

That BBC story links to this:

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/908-dni-clapper-declassifies-and-releases-telephone-metadata-collection-documents

Notice it's the same legal justification I have given on previous pages ref. Section 215 and Pen Recorders - always nice to have your logic confirmed.

Interesting that all this was made available to members of Congress and senior members of the Judiciary several years ago. Blows the inferences by Snowden and the Press of a secret illegal NSA program right out of the water. It also shows the reasoning behind the changes to the Patriot Act, notice they couldn't track the location of the known terrorist dialing internationally from the USA?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[mrcash2009 0]

To me it shows all that is needed to be shown and not everything, plus acceptance of even this with no guarantee 100 percent it doesn't go further becuase we are told so and dont work for them. Then again hey, when was it ever going to be that we would agree.

[mrcash2009 0]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online

Long Island resident said her web search history and 'trying to learn how to cook lentils' prompted a visit from authorities but police say search was prompted by tipoff

[Sealife 22]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

Just to add the other quotes so the whole picture can be sen

The former employee's computer searches took place on this employee's workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms 'pressure cooker bombs' and 'backpacks'.

[mrcash2009 0]

Didn't need to quote it becuase the entire article is linked :)

Its an interesting case what with the end results. That search can be done by anyone or even added in the tags description of a video referencing the incident for search engines. In actual fact what you have is tip off's wasting police time and resources, but I guess that will be ignored. "Acting on triggers" are astonishing and more flimsy year by year. Interesting based on the on-line aspect mainly.

Edited August 3, 2013 by mrcash2009

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

It was his old company that tipped off police - maybe a prank? Update on her blog, looks like the original was misleading?:

The piece I wrote was the story as we knew it with the information we were told. None of it was fabricated. If you know me, you know I would never do that.

If it was misleading, just know that my intention was the truth. And that was what I knew as the truth until about ten minutes ago. That there were other circumstances involved was something we all were unaware of.

Thank you.

http://openareas.tumblr.com/post/57110075747/clarification-and-update

[mrcash2009 0]

Certainly seems something like that, although it does demonstrate just how easy things are to get into stupid-ville based on some flimsy information. The - run to authority first ask logical questions later approach.

1xJnvVVMJ5w

Smart devices have that name for many reasons.

For ref of the Snowden topic ..

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/496175/20130801/gchq-nsa-national-security-agency-donations-spying.htm

The US National Security Agency has paid at least £100m to the UK spy agency GCHQ over the last three years for access to Britain's intelligence gathering programmes.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/02/telecoms-bt-vodafone-cables-gchq

BT and Vodafone among telecoms companies passing details to GCHQ

Fears of customer backlash over breach of privacy as firms give GCHQ unlimited access to their undersea cables

Edited August 3, 2013 by mrcash2009
255

[Sealife 22]

Didn't need to quote it becuase the entire article is linked :)

.

Less we forget some people are not priviliged to see all interenet and cick all links , it would be Ironic for someone to jusdge the whole article based on your post , it looks a little Bias , not that was your intention i`m sure , however the article writer has apologised for doing the exact same thing without the information , you already had it ;).

[mrcash2009 0]

Less we forget some people are not priviliged to see all interenet and cick all links , it would be Ironic for someone to jusdge the whole article based on your post

Correction, that would be poor internet use of the user and they need a browser upgrade :p I always by habit post a link and quote the title/tag line (much like posting a thread with some crappy title that doesn't explain the link), you make of it what you will in the end.

Edited August 3, 2013 by mrcash2009

[Sealife 22]

Correction, that would be poor internet use of the user and they need a browser upgrade :p I always by habit post a link and quote the title/tag line (much like posting a thread with some crappy title that doesn't explain the link).

re read in context of this thread and the restriction of internet , think work filters , government filters et al and then think how your OP may look.

I believe you maybe misunderstand the context here alogether based on your OP and your last edit of the post above.

[mrcash2009 0]

My OP (I assume you refer to the post of the article) was a link to an article that explained everything in the link ... I posted no comment on it in that post, see what others thought .. hence posting it, after that you have lost me a bit on the point your making.