Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing

[timosman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/



A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy. The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:

What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes. And we don’t have to guess who’s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It’ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra “special” attention.

This basically formalizes what was already happening under the radar. We’ve known for a couple of years now that the Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS were getting information from the NSA. Because that information was obtained without a warrant, the agencies were instructed to engage in “parallel construction” when explaining to courts and defense attorneys how the information had been obtained. If you think parallel construction just sounds like a bureaucratically sterilized way of saying big stinking lie, well, you wouldn’t be alone. And it certainly isn’t the only time that that national security apparatus has let law enforcement agencies benefit from policies that are supposed to be reserved for terrorism investigations in order to get around the Fourth Amendment, then instructed those law enforcement agencies to misdirect, fudge and outright lie about how they obtained incriminating information — see the Stingray debacle. This isn’t just a few rogue agents. The lying has been a matter of policy. We’re now learning that the feds had these agreements with police agencies all over the country, affecting thousands of cases.

On the one hand, I guess it’s better that this new data-sharing policy is acknowledged in the open instead of carried out surreptitiously. On the other hand, there’s something even more ominous about the fact that they no longer feel as though they need to hide it.

It’s all another sobering reminder that any powers we grant to the federal government for the purpose of national security will inevitably be used just about everywhere else. And extraordinary powers we grant government in wartime rarely go away once the war is over. And, of course, the nifty thing for government agencies about a “war on terrorism” is that it’s a war that will never formally end.

[GunnyFreedom]

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."

The only thing Winston Smith had to hide was a diary, and look what happened to him.

[Working Poor]

There must be some kind of low tec solution out there.

[tod evans]

Is this surprising to anyone?

Government exists to perpetuate government..

[unknown]

Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/).


A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases.

Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy. The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:

What does this rule change mean for you?

In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages.

FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police.

That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes.

:(

[Anti Federalist]

What does this rule change mean for you?

Why are we ruled by rules and not by debated upon laws, with people's representation throughout the process?

[Lucille]

Obama Administration to Expand Unconstitutional Warrantless NSA Spying on Americans
The new surveillance rules have nothing to do with stopping terrorism.
https://reason.com/blog/2016/03/11/obama-administration-to-expand-unconstit


Spy agency officials and lawyers are putting together a new set of rules that will allow the National Security Agency to share whatever information it garners from its extensive electronic surveillance efforts about American citizens with other law enforcement agencies, reported the New York Times a couple of weeks ago. No warrants needed.

This expansion of domestic surveillance is particularly galling coming from the administration of a man who declared in 2007:


This [Bush] administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

The Massachusetts ACLU blog Privacy SOS explains how the new rules being promulgated by the Obama administration imperil Americans' privacy and their Fourth Amendment rights:


What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes. And we don’t have to guess who’s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It’ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra “special” attention.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Why is that a surprise ?

If you look at the past and extrapolate, it's a certainty.

[ZENemy]

Well we as a people don't do a thing about it, when all the spying stuff came out a few years ago what was done about it? Nothing

What did the people do? Nothing

So whats to stop them then? Again; nothing.

[unknown]

Why are we ruled by rules and not by debated upon laws, with people's representation throughout the process?

I realize that its a rhetorical question but the primary reason is because it absolves our elected representatives of any responsibility.

When we approach our congressman for help regarding say the "terror" watch or the no fly/no buy list, he can simply say:

"I cant help you. You'll have to address your grievance directly with the DHS and follow their exception procedures. Sorry. But since youre here, have you considered making a contribution to support my bid for re-election?"

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Goddamn 9/11 and NSA....

I'm not really in articulate mind to express how contempt I am of this, so I will quote some comments from the article instead:


Nor business. Much of the NSA's work is shielded from prying eyes by the fact they contract to private companies. Don't make any mistake, this isn't just the government. This isn't just business. This is one class in society saying to everyone with less: you are ours now.


We all let this happen. We let our politicians lead us around with propaganda. We gobbled up the fear, the hate, the partisanship, and desire to win. We let them turn each other against ourselves, happy to quarrel with other groups within society instead of coming together and protecting ourselves from the folks who were quietly taking everything from us. We forgot that it actually matters what the candidate will do once they get into office. We let them carve away media regulations (starting in the 80's), electoral controls/protections (Citizens United was the nail in the coffin), the Glass-Steagall economic protections (Thanks to Slick Willy and the GOP), access to education (massive rollbacks in public education across the country), and basic constitutional freedoms (all in the name of protecting freedom). They're making us scared, desperate, ignorant, and malleable, as they sit back and grow fat and happy on our backs and on the back of the war economy. The never-ending war economy.

We didn't dig deeper and push harder for true representation when we had the chance. Now that opportunity to get back our country is slipping away. Don't keep putting your future in the hands of those who would be kings.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, it is, and that is the correct answer.


I realize that its a rhetorical question but the primary reason is because it absolves our elected representatives of any responsibility.

When we approach our congressman for help regarding say the "terror" watch or the no fly/no buy list, he can simply say:

"I cant help you. You'll have to address your grievance directly with the DHS and follow their exception procedures. Sorry. But since youre here, have you considered making a contribution to support my bid for re-election?"

[Anti Federalist]

Why is that a surprise ?

If you look at the past and extrapolate, it's a certainty.

Of course it is, no surprise here.

I get tired of getting sniffed at for being a technological Luddite for pointing it out all the time.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Who watches the watchers?

[Anti Federalist]

Worse than nothing, most of your fellow AmeriKunts want this, and more.


Well we as a people don't do a thing about it, when all the spying stuff came out a few years ago what was done about it? Nothing

What did the people do? Nothing

So whats to stop them then? Again; nothing.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Of course it is, no surprise here.

I get tired of getting sniffed at for being a technological Luddite for pointing it out all the time.

I have a feeling as we approach more of this totalitarian technology BS, they're going to use the term "Luddite" to silence dissent like the way they use "racist", "bigot", and "homophobe" to silence dissent today.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Comment from the article


Just to let you all know, I am an American living in Europe and the US is chasing all of over here every day. There are huge pressures on Financial Services firms to give data to the US government and most of the details related to taxes.

Uncle Sam wants to know do we have drivers licenses in European countries and which ones. Do we have life insurance and who is the beneficiary? Do we have home or car insurance and if yes how much does it insure. Are we attending University in a European Country. Where do we go on Holiday? Does our wife or Family travel with us? I know they are gathering this and it concerns me everytime I fly to the US.

I worry about this and I am the son of a highly decorated and respected US citizen and I have several uncles and cousins who have been highly decorated for service in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf wars. My uncle earned the congressional medal and I have a purple heart from Vietnam. Yet, I am under as much or more surveilence than an ISIS operative.

Welcome to 1984.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Worse than nothing, most of your fellow AmeriKunts want this, and more.

What can we do? Besides contact senators/congressmen, and sign petitions?

[tod evans]

What can we do? Besides contact senators/congressmen, and sign petitions?

Vote damn it!

Vote harder.

[DamianTV]

I realize that its a rhetorical question but the primary reason is because it absolves our elected representatives of any responsibility.

When we approach our congressman for help regarding say the "terror" watch or the no fly/no buy list, he can simply say:

"I cant help you. You'll have to address your grievance directly with the DHS and follow their exception procedures. Sorry. But since youre here, have you considered making a contribution to support my bid for re-election?"

I think the rhetorical answer isnt so rhetorical after all; there are so many people the do not understand exactly what you have stated. We have created a class of "super people" that are beyond reproach and absolved of any and all responsibility. Your statement is the very foundation where I first concluded that the government is the Monopoly of Violence.

If they can kill, murder, and even commit to flat out genocide, but we cant draw pictures of guns, have GI Joe action figures, or even speak ill of them above our breath, what have we really achieved as a society?

[jmdrake]

It's not a surprise and boubus Americanus will go along with it. Simple boubus logic. Terrorists kill. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

Drugs kill. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

Guns kill. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

Cars kill. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

Peanuts kill. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

Dogs kill. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

God kills. Killing is bad. Therefore it is necessary to give up liberty to stop killing.

Government kills. Killing is bad. Boubus brain unable to handle logic and short circuits at this point.

[erowe1]

Are we supposed to believe this hasn't been happening for a long time already?

[jmdrake]

Are we supposed to believe this hasn't been happening for a long time already?

It's a "conspiracy theory" until the government admits it. Then most people will still believe it's a "conspiracy theory" unless the media harps on it for 7 days straight.