presidents and wiretaps, etc.

[redwood66]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

 

[jaaron]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

Right. But if we are concerned about their dealings with specific US citizens, we do. Clapper didn't say there was no warrant for that- he said there wasn't a warrant for trump or the phones at Trump tower. There is also a very good chance Flynn recordings were friendly intelligence - GCHQ

 

[redwood66]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

Right. But if we are concerned about their dealings with specific US citizens, we do. Clapper didn't say there was no warrant for that- he said there wasn't a warrant for trump or the phones at Trump tower. There is also a very good chance Flynn recordings were friendly intelligence - GCHQ

He said

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/clapper-trump-wiretap/

"For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," Clapper said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Hopefully we will find out soon what happened. It is very concerning to me when surveillance and leaking become no big deal to people.

 

[sstephensid]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

Right. But if we are concerned about their dealings with specific US citizens, we do. Clapper didn't say there was no warrant for that- he said there wasn't a warrant for trump or the phones at Trump tower. There is also a very good chance Flynn recordings were friendly intelligence - GCHQ

He said

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/clapper-trump-wiretap/

"For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," Clapper said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Hopefully we will find out soon what happened. It is very concerning to me when surveillance and leaking become no big deal to people.

More concerning than the Russian involvement in a presidential election?

 

[redwood66]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

Right. But if we are concerned about their dealings with specific US citizens, we do. Clapper didn't say there was no warrant for that- he said there wasn't a warrant for trump or the phones at Trump tower. There is also a very good chance Flynn recordings were friendly intelligence - GCHQ

He said

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/clapper-trump-wiretap/

"For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," Clapper said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Hopefully we will find out soon what happened. It is very concerning to me when surveillance and leaking become no big deal to people.

More concerning than the Russian involvement in a presidential election?

Yes when it is my government doing the surveillance and leaking on its own citizens. Russian interference is to be expected.

 

[jaaron]

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think it works that way. If they are monitoring a foreign subject, I believe all of whatever kind of communication has been authorised will be monitored for the duration of the warrant. I do not believe they turn it on and off based on who the communication is with.

There are absolute specific rules on what to do once the listener realizes there is an American citizen is on the line, to protect that person under the 4th Amendment.

It's super late here, so I'm not going to look it up tonight, but my recollection is that FISA warrants are both liberal on, and opaque about, 4th amendment rights, and became more so in the early Obama years when he continued to expand and broaden a lot of NSA authority initiatives started in the Bush years.

I was not talking about FISA and foreigners. I am talking about what the listener is supposed to do once they realize there is an American on the call with a foreigner they are monitoring. You don't need a FISA warrant to monitor foreigners.

I think there is a lot of unclearness and misunderstanding about what the listener is supposed to do in that case. I believe the procedure followed is called minimisation. The NSA (or whoever) can still listen but are expected to disguise or redact the names of US citizens and the information is only supposed to be released if the information is relevant to the case at hand.

This is an explanation from Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution writing on Lawfare:

The minimization requirements under Section 702 begin where the targeting procedures leave off. They require personnel to "destroy inadvertently acquired communications of or concerning a United States person at the earliest practical point in the processing cycle at which such communication can be identified" if it "does not contain foreign intelligence information" or "evidence of a crime." All such material acquired on U.S. persons must be destroyed within five years.

As communications get reviewed, analysts have to assess whether they pertain to a legitimate target and contain foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime. Only those that do "may be processed." Communications that do not meet the standard for retention and that contain U.S. person information "will be destroyed upon recognition, and may be retained no longer than five years in any event." Communications that were the result of targeting of someone who was reasonably believed to be overseas but is, in fact, located domestically "will be treated as domestic communications. . . ."

All domestic communications "will be promptly destroyed upon recognition unless the Director . . . of NSA specifically determines, in writing," that the communication is legitimate foreign intelligence, contains evidence of a crime, contains "technical data base information . . . or information necessary to understand or assess a communications security vulnerability," or contains information "pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property." The NSA is allowed, if a domestic communication suggests that a legitimate target has entered the United States, to alert the FBI, and when domestic communications indicate evidence of a crime, it is allowed to give that information "to appropriate Federal law enforcement authorities. . . ."

Meanwhile, foreign communications involving U.S. persons can be retained and used only if necessary for the maintenance of technical databases, if it involves evidence of a crime, "if the identity of the United States person is deleted and a generic term or symbol is substituted," if the U.S. person has consented, or in certain other situations: if the U.S. person is meaningfully tied to a foreign power, if "the identity of the United States person is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance," of if the person may be "engaging in international terrorist activities," for example.

 

[jaaron]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

Right. But if we are concerned about their dealings with specific US citizens, we do. Clapper didn't say there was no warrant for that- he said there wasn't a warrant for trump or the phones at Trump tower. There is also a very good chance Flynn recordings were friendly intelligence - GCHQ

He said

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/clapper-trump-wiretap/

"For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," Clapper said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Hopefully we will find out soon what happened. It is very concerning to me when surveillance and leaking become no big deal to people.

I don't rate Clapper incredibly highly, so firstly, would be inclined to take him with a grain of salt. But what I read here is that his is being as cagey as Jeff Sessions was under congressional questioning and trying to answer very specifically in order to leave some room around the edges.

 

[jaaron]

And by the way, this is Mike Pompeo, Trump's CIA head on surveillance. He's a fan.


(from the Guardian)
Pompeo has waxed enthusiastic about rolling back the minimal restrictions on the US surveillance apparatus enacted during the Obama administration. Yet his description of those restrictions has not always been accurate. In a January op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Pompeo incorrectly claimed the “collection of phone metadata under the Patriot Act was banned by Congress and finally ceased at the end of November”. In fact, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 only restricted the bulk collection of domestic US phone metadata, without touching the vast powers the Patriot Act provides to the FBI for surreptitious collection of communications and financial data.

Pompeo favored expanding US surveillance powers substantially, to include “re-establishing collection of all metadata” and proposing a “comprehensive, searchable database” that includes “publicly available financial and lifestyle information”, without defining what “lifestyle information” means. “Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed,” he continued, adding: “The use of strong encryption in personal communications may itself be a red flag.”

 

[redwood66]

jaaron thank you for researching and providing that information to PS on minimization as it is an integral part of advanced training for those who collect surveillance data. The argument on metadata collection is a lively one in my household so I am not in agreement with Pompeo no matter how much I am told - "But its just metadata." I am concerned more about all the things we (US citizens) aren't told - because its classified. While I completely understand the need for information to be classified, Pompeo's stand does not make me more comfortable. It is very easy for the enormous power of the intelligence agencies to be abused. I do not want people in the US to be complacent as arkieb says the Australians are.

 

[bunnycat]

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think it works that way. If they are monitoring a foreign subject, I believe all of whatever kind of communication has been authorised will be monitored for the duration of the warrant. I do not believe they turn it on and off based on who the communication is with.

There are absolute specific rules on what to do once the listener realizes there is an American citizen is on the line, to protect that person under the 4th Amendment.

It's super late here, so I'm not going to look it up tonight, but my recollection is that FISA warrants are both liberal on, and opaque about, 4th amendment rights, and became more so in the early Obama years when he continued to expand and broaden a lot of NSA authority initiatives started in the Bush years.

I was not talking about FISA and foreigners. I am talking about what the listener is supposed to do once they realize there is an American on the call with a foreigner they are monitoring. You don't need a FISA warrant to monitor foreigners.

I think there is a lot of unclearness and misunderstanding about what the listener is supposed to do in that case. I believe the procedure followed is called minimisation. The NSA (or whoever) can still listen but are expected to disguise or redact the names of US citizens and the information is only supposed to be released if the information is relevant to the case at hand.

This is an explanation from Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution writing on Lawfare:

The minimization requirements under Section 702 begin where the targeting procedures leave off. They require personnel to "destroy inadvertently acquired communications of or concerning a United States person at the earliest practical point in the processing cycle at which such communication can be identified" if it "does not contain foreign intelligence information" or "evidence of a crime." All such material acquired on U.S. persons must be destroyed within five years.

As communications get reviewed, analysts have to assess whether they pertain to a legitimate target and contain foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime. Only those that do "may be processed." Communications that do not meet the standard for retention and that contain U.S. person information "will be destroyed upon recognition, and may be retained no longer than five years in any event." Communications that were the result of targeting of someone who was reasonably believed to be overseas but is, in fact, located domestically "will be treated as domestic communications. . . ."

All domestic communications "will be promptly destroyed upon recognition unless the Director . . . of NSA specifically determines, in writing," that the communication is legitimate foreign intelligence, contains evidence of a crime, contains "technical data base information . . . or information necessary to understand or assess a communications security vulnerability," or contains information "pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property." The NSA is allowed, if a domestic communication suggests that a legitimate target has entered the United States, to alert the FBI, and when domestic communications indicate evidence of a crime, it is allowed to give that information "to appropriate Federal law enforcement authorities. . . ."

Meanwhile, foreign communications involving U.S. persons can be retained and used only if necessary for the maintenance of technical databases, if it involves evidence of a crime, "if the identity of the United States person is deleted and a generic term or symbol is substituted," if the U.S. person has consented, or in certain other situations: if the U.S. person is meaningfully tied to a foreign power, if "the identity of the United States person is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance," of if the person may be "engaging in international terrorist activities," for example.

That was my understanding of it. If you're a US citizen, you can be listened to in as far as it concerns what they are listening for. And so I would think if a (US) person where talking, and they were someone who works in government, or other public service (military) then certainly they could also be listened in on within certain bounds and as it related to the case.

 

[jaaron]

jaaron thank you for researching and providing that information to PS on minimization as it is an integral part of advanced training for those who collect surveillance data. The argument on metadata collection is a lively one in my household so I am not in agreement with Pompeo no matter how much I am told - "But its just metadata." I am concerned more about all the things we (US citizens) aren't told - because its classified. While I completely understand the need for information to be classified, Pompeo's stand does not make me more comfortable. It is very easy for the enormous power of the intelligence agencies to be abused. I do not want people in the US to be complacent as arkieb says the Australians are.

I think we are in rare agreement on that. One of my biggest complaints about the Obama administration was their expansion of NSA surveillance powers. Started post-9/11 but continued under Obama. While I do see a lot of it as a civil rights violation, I'm fairly resigned to the idea we're all monitored to some extent, so I try to be as dull as possible. My husband was hacked (professionally, not personally) by a Russian entity a few years ago, and it was quite a time.

I will say, that maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm more concerned by what Google and Amazon et al do to track me and what they do with that, and potential abuses, than I am about the government.

 

[sstephensid]

Yes, but if the whole point of the warrant is reason to believe that Americans are suspected of having whatever dealings they're concerned about with a foreign agent, that will have been included in what they're allowed to listen to. If Flynn or whoever was named in a warrant against whatever Russians, than those conversations are a legit target.

Clapper just said yesterday that there was no warrant issued. Therefore, if you believe him, then the call was recorded and transcribed without a warrant. And then leaked to the press.

I don't think he said there was no warrant for the Russian banks/operatives.

We don't need a FISA warrant for foreign operatives.

Right. But if we are concerned about their dealings with specific US citizens, we do. Clapper didn't say there was no warrant for that- he said there wasn't a warrant for trump or the phones at Trump tower. There is also a very good chance Flynn recordings were friendly intelligence - GCHQ

He said

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/clapper-trump-wiretap/

"For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," Clapper said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Hopefully we will find out soon what happened. It is very concerning to me when surveillance and leaking become no big deal to people.

More concerning than the Russian involvement in a presidential election?

Yes when it is my government doing the surveillance and leaking on its own citizens. Russian interference is to be expected.

And that is our difference in a nutshell. You are more concerned about a claim made by DJT on Twitter, with no evidence than something that may have affected a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. The FBI has publicly released info on hackings related to the Russians and our election. Who knows what else hasn't been uncovered yet.

 

[redwood66]

And that is our difference in a nutshell. You are more concerned about a claim made by DJT on Twitter, with no evidence than something that may have affected a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. The FBI has publicly released info on hackings related to the Russians and our election. Who knows what else hasn't been uncovered yet.

My concern has nothing to do with Trump's tweets so please do not assume anything.

Edit - My only concern about his tweets is that he is doing it at all.

As far as affecting our presidential election no evidence of any collusion has been presented or found. Multiple people, including Sen. Tom Cotton and House Intelligence Committee Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) both said last night there has been no evidence they have seen of collusion. I will take them both at their word until something is proved otherwise.