Snowden Claims the Ability to Wiretap Anyone at Any Time

[Rick]

I would like to hear his definition of wiretap but if he's talking about the ability to monitor calls real time rather than being granted a court order then he most certainly DOES have that ability.

NPR's Mark Memmot reports Carrie Cordero, the director of national securities studies at Georgetown University Law Center, spoke with Steve Henn on NPR's Morning Edition on Wednesday and told Henn "the notion that this individual has the authority to go ahead and ... 'wiretap' people is just ridiculous.

"For an analyst sitting in Hawaii to initiate a wiretap on anyone anywhere, he or she would need much, much more," Henn said. "Perhaps most notably, the ability to monitor new calls, emails and chats in real-time."

I've posted several times that as part of my job I could sit in my home and monitor calls real time in a switch over 300 miles away. If you have access to a switch to gather metadata you can monitor live calls. I've also monitored real time text chats between employees and had the ability to print out the full text of those chats. This isn't rocket science. Whether that ability is granted NSA employees is another thing entirely but the difference in being able to monitor a call real time with a court order and without a court order is simply the piece of paper. Be wary of the words they are using. In this case I don't think Snowden is referring to being granted a piece of paper but rather the physical ability to monitor or "wiretap" calls.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...retapping.html

[BENESSE]

In this case I don't think Snowden is referring to being granted a piece of paper but rather the physical ability to monitor or "wiretap" calls.

Not rocket science and entirely doable by practically anyone. Don't understand why this surprises so many people.

[Ken]

The government often relies on it's own secret definition of words and terms instead of commonly accepted definitions. That way, they can lie under oath and later disingenuously claim that they were telling the truth.

It all depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

[Ken]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...tcmp=obnetwork

[Rick]

This brings up an interesting question and one that will eventually have to be tried in the courts. Let us say that I have a friend that is a terrorist (whether I know that or not is not germane). The friend calls and I speak to him. The NSA then acquires a court order, grooms their data and ultimately arrests me on some suspicion. Is the data collected prior to the court order admissible? Or, can they only use that data acquired after the court order. If they can only use that data acquired after the court order then why do they need to mine the data to begin with? Rhetorical questions.

[canid]

Wasn't FISC issuing retroactive warrants for just that sort of case?

[welderguy]

Not rocket science and entirely doable by practically anyone. Don't understand why this surprises so many people.

and why they think it just started recently!

[BENESSE]

This has been going on for a loooong time in one form or another. The data gathering is just more sophisticated now as are we in all our dealings; it leaves us vulnerable as much as it helps.

[Ken]

This has been going on for a loooong time in one form or another. The data gathering is just more sophisticated now as are we in all our dealings; it leaves us vulnerable as much as it helps.

Here's my take on what REALLY leaves us vulnerable:

Unsecure Borders over which anyone of any nationality or political bent can cross.

An Immigration Policy that allows terrorists to enter the country, gain resident alien status for reasons of political oppression, receive every government benefit imaginable, travel back and forth to the country they fled because of government oppression, and detonate bombs AFTER our government was warned to keep an eye on them.

Supplying Radical Jihadist Regimes with advanced weapons.

A Politically Correct mentality that treats everyone the same and ignores the obvious.

Borrowing huge sums of money from foreign nations.

Militarizing our police forces and government agencies.

Granting the military the authority to spy on us at home.

Repeated violations of Constitutional rights by a government that views the Constitution as a hindrance, and a population of sheep willing to accept such conduct.

Passing people control legislation and calling it gun control legislation.

Allowing the government to delve and maintain records on every private aspect of our lives.

......and that's only the beginning.

[Seniorman]

Well Ken, that stuff's boring. What's really important is of the contestants on "Dancing With The Stars," who will win tonight?

S.M.

[Ken]

Well Ken, that stuff's boring. What's really important is of the contestants on "Dancing With The Stars," who will win tonight?

S.M.

Is that a television program?

[welderguy]

Is that a television program?

Yep and not a good one at that!

[welderguy]

Well Ken, that stuff's boring. What's really important is of the contestants on "Dancing With The Stars," who will win tonight?

S.M.

And dont forget all the armchair quarterbacking of every survival show out there .

[Ken]

[Rick]

I just finished reading one of my Senator's newletters that he published on Friday. Below is the response I just sent him.

Dear Senator XXXX,

I was saddened to read your newsletter article, "XXXX Op-Ed in WSJ – To My Congressional Colleagues: Stop the NSA Grandstanding", in which you sided with the President.

I know each of you have been briefed about the capabilities of the NSA. I also know they have denied real time monitoring/capturing of voice data. If that is true, it is a restriction by policy not technology.

As a 30 year XXXX employee I can assure you that if you have access to the switch you have access to everything that is on the switch including conversations. In simpler terms, if you have access to a computer hard drive then you have access to everything that is on that hard drive; live data, erased data, even encrypted data. Think of the telephone switch in terms of a hard drive and it will put the telephone switch a little better into perspective. If they are pulling metadata they have the capability to download live conversations.

As part of my job I routinely monitored real time conversations hundreds of miles away. Had I wanted, I could have recorded those conversations. Let me make it clear that I did not. However, the NSA does have that capability if they have access to the switch. Is this what we want our government to be able to do? I certainly don't.

The administration has been quick to point out that the NSA has prevented dozens of attacks world wide. They say this as if PRISM was the sole reason these attacks were prevented and they also make these claims as if the attacks would have occurred had PRISM not been in existence. If that were the case then they would have been able to stop the Boston bombings and the death of our Ambassador in Benghazi. I don't believe them and I don't know many Americans that do.

We encourage whistle blowers to step forward and point out grievous wrongs. Yet when they do we want them arrested and tried by the courts. Mr. Snowden was correct in his assertions of the NSA's capabilities if they have access to the switch. I also believe he was correct in exposing what I consider to be violations of our Constitution. For that he should be applauded not criminalized.

In your newsletter you made the statement, "Had the recently revealed programs been available to the NSA before 9/11, we likely could have identified some or all of the hijackers before they murdered thousands."

I would respectfully remind you that we had voluminous data available that indicated an attack was imminent and we failed to respond. Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 said, "9/11 should have and could have been prevented." McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were "not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with." So I am not at all certain PRISM would have identified any level of threat above and beyond the intelligence we already had. Nor do I believe it would have been acted on any more than the intelligence we had already collected.

Finally, I will leave you with your comment within the same newsletter. "Twelve years later, the intelligence community is doing exactly what the American people asked for."

I don't begrudge what the intelligence community is doing, sir. I lament HOW they are doing it. They should not be allowed to monitor innocent Americans in any manner. I have no connection to terrorists nor do I want any harm to come to my country. So violating my privacy garners the NSA no usable data. Yet my privacy is still violated. This is not democracy nor is it in accordance with our Constitution.

I strongly urge you to speak to other telecommunication employees and determine first hand exactly what data the NSA has access to. Then compare that information to your briefing paper the NSA provided and see how well the information matches up.

Sincerely,

Rick

[Ken]

Rick, letters don't normally impress me. I'm impressed. That was outstanding. Rep on the way as soon as I spread some. I'll be back here.

[LowKey]

Longer montage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...EPYSt5Dk#at=40

[hunter63]

Nice job on the letter, Rick, from some one that know what he's talking about.
rep your way

[Delta 5168]

Nice letter Rick!
Does anyone else notice that politicians from both parties have their panties in a wad over this? Could it be that they are afraid of what is known about THEM will be made public? ...not to mention that YOU will find out what THEY have been doing to YOU all along! I read "1984" back in the sixties. Almost everything forecast then has come true.
Sorry, someone is going to have to prove to me that Snowden has committed any crime.
Ken, in this case, truth may NOT be the perfect defense.

[canid]

He knowingly furnished classified materials to a third party. That's a crime. It's not in question. The question is whether it should be when it details this type of activity.