TwitterFacebook

CNET Says NSA “Admits” Listening to US Phone Calls - But That’s Not What the Video Shows

Distortion
Media • Views: 33,533

Uh, wait a minute. The latest fear-mongering story about the NSA appears to be bogus. Here’s the story at CNET: NSA Admits Listening to U.S. Phone Calls Without Warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News.

Sounds pretty inflammatory, right?

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Really, “eavesdrop on phone calls?” And the NSA admitted it?

If you read this carefully, you’ll notice that the source for this “admission” is not the NSA at all — it’s second-hand information from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). And Nadler himself never even says he heard it from the NSA.

Here’s how writer Declan McCullagh describes the exchange between Nadler and FBI director Richard Mueller that led to his shocking headline:

Rep. Nadler’s disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek “a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.”

Is information about that procedure “classified in any way?” Nadler asked.

“I don’t think so,” Mueller replied.

“Then I can say the following,” Nadler said. “We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that…In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.”

The key quote here is, “We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone.” Notice: Nadler did not say they could listen to the phone call, he said “get the specific information.”

Here’s the actual video clip of the full exchange from C-Span, which explains the discrepancy. I’ve set it to start at about 46:00 into the hearing, right at the point where the exchange between Mueller and Nadler begins:

Video

There’s no mention of it in McCullagh’s article, but this entire discussion was about metadata. They explicitly say this several times, using the word “metadata.” And metadata is not “listening to phone calls,” it’s the equivalent of looking at a telephone bill. That’s why Mueller begins (in the clip above) by saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The bottom line: this CNET article and headline are extremely misleading. There is no evidence here to support the hyperbolic claims made by their article.

UPDATE at 6/15/13 9:10:28 pm

A transcript of the section in question, courtesy of LGF contributor simoom:

Mueller: As we all know, these particular records are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that to be the case. And secondly, the determination as to the legality and that standard has been addressed by the FISA Court, in the affirmative, to support this particular program.

[someone introduces Nadler]

Nadler: Let me ask you the following. Under section 215, and I’d also like to associate myself with the remarks that a dragnet subpoena for every telephone record, etc — every e-mail record, though I know they don’t do that anymore, though they could again tomorrow, and they did do it — certainly makes a mockery of the relevance standard in section 215. If everything in the world is relevant then there’s no meaning to that word. Some of us offered amendments to narrow that several years ago and in retrospect maybe we should have adopted those amendments. But that’s no excuse for a misinterpretation of relevance to the point that there is no such meaning to the word.

Now secondly, under section 215 if you’ve gotten information from metadata, and you as a result of that thing that, “gee, this phone number, 873-whatever, looks suspicious and we aught to actually get the contents of that phone. Do you need a new specific warrant?

Mueller: You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information, so if you need the subscriber information you would need to probably get a National Security Letter to get that subscriber information. And then if you wanted to do more —

Nadler: If you wanted to listen to the phone —

Mueller: Then you would have to get a special, a particularized order from the FISA Court directed at that particular phone and that particular individual.

Nadler: Now is the answer you just gave me classified?

Mueller: Is what?

Nadler: Is the answer you just gave me classified in any way?

Mueller: I don’t think so.

Nadler: OK, then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. Other-words is what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.

Mueller: I’m not sure it’s the answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Nadler: OK, I don’t question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to —

Mueller: I’d be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.

Jump to bottom

145 comments

1 Lancelot Link  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:04:57pm

Declan McCullagh is the writer responsible for the “Al Gore claims he invented the internet” story.

2 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:11:19pm

re: #1 Lancelot Link

Declan McCullagh is the writer responsible for the “Al Gore claims he invented the internet” story.

Really? He launched that deceptive meme?

3 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:12:25pm

re: #2 Charles Johnson

Really? He launched that deceptive meme?

The distortion of Gore’s remark that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” apparently originated in a March 11, 1999, Wired News article by Declan McCullagh, which stated, “It’s a time-honored tradition for presidential hopefuls to claim credit for other people’s successes. But Al Gore as the father of the Internet? That’s what the campaigner in chief told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer during an interview Tuesday evening.”

mediamatters.org

4 Lancelot Link  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:18:11pm

In his own words;
wired.com
He also is (or was) a member of the “Bay Area Republicans for Ron Paul” meetup group.

5 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:20:42pm

Declan McCullagh at New Hampshire Liberty Forum

Youtube Video

6 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:28:46pm

Journalism sits up, vomits all over itself, passes out again.

7 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:38:49pm

Wow, Twitter clicks vastly outnumbering comments on this one. Are all you folks trying to have real lives instead of paying attention to this crazy shit or something?

8 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:44:55pm

Must be. Damn. Starts cooking dinner.

9 bratwurst  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:46:43pm

re: #7 Charles Johnson

Wow, Twitter clicks vastly outnumbering comments on this one. Are all you folks trying to have real lives instead of paying attention to this crazy shit or something?

I find it all awfully depressing. As you have pointed out many times, there ARE real reasons to be concerned and important issues we need to discuss…but shit heads like Greenwald and this author are sucking all of the oxygen out of the conversation.

10 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:47:19pm

Mueller said, a) you have the metadata; b) you then need a national security letter to get the users personal information; c) then you get a warrant (or FISC order). He did not say anything about “Listening to US Phone Calls” all the time. That’s just a lie.

11 Targetpractice  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:55:06pm

re: #10 Gus

Mueller said, a) you have the metadata; b) you then need a national security letter to get the users personal information; c) then you get a warrant (or FISC order). He did not say anything about “Listening to US Phone Calls” all the time. That’s just a lie.

i.e. he’s saying everything we already knew, that they have access in the sense that they can get the data if they ask “Mother May I?”

12 Stanghazi  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:57:37pm

re: #9 bratwurst

I find it all awfully depressing. As you have pointed out many times, there ARE real reasons to be concerned and important issues we need to discuss…but shit heads like Greenwald and this author are sucking all of the oxygen out of the conversation.

John Cusack isn’t helping either. They are jumping on Snowden! Vindicated! Without thoughtful process.

Thoughtful process……where’d ya go?

13 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:59:44pm

re: #10 Gus

Kinda makes you wonder what this former FBI counter-terrorism specialist means by this statement:

CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

Youtube Video

14 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:01:45pm

re: #13 Cap’n Magic

Kinda makes you wonder what this former FBI counter-terrorism specialist means by this statement:

I don’t trust Clemente. But if you listen to what he says he basically says they go back to phone recordings. They don’t actively monitor them. He made the claim so he would have to prove that they are recording all phone conversation for future use.

15 freetoken  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:01:47pm

re: #13 Cap’n Magic

Remote Viewing?


/ducks…

16 b.d.  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:03:45pm

The Henny Pennys are going to have a hard time unbelieving what they think they just heard.

17 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:05:04pm
18 Romantic Heretic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:11:01pm

re: #7 Charles Johnson

Wow, Twitter clicks vastly outnumbering comments on this one. Are all you folks trying to have real lives instead of paying attention to this crazy shit or something?

Sorry. I was writing, and doing some promotion for my latest ebook.

19 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:19:39pm

That’s it? No one has any comments?

20 sauceruney  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:19:47pm

I am still searching, but I’m pretty sure McCullagh used to write for WND, or they at least linked his stories a lot.

21 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:19:52pm

Boobs.

22 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:20:32pm

re: #15 freetoken

More like a rolling streamed archive where only those who are targets will be kept past some arbitrary time period-say, 90-180 days-after that, all they’ll have is the metadata. Since voice data is highly compressed, it would indeed be possible to record all voice traffic, and domestic LE has for the longest time been always demanding for backdoors in one form or another. Since the NSA’s purpose is supposively pure SIGINT, you have to wonder if in their quest to hoover all data, maybe someone in the Puzzle Place though that since voice data is lightweight in terms of storage, it would make perfect sense to record every piece of voice traffic for a period of time.

re: #14 Gus

Also notice in his CNN conversation that he specifically stated that the FBI couldn’t use that data in a criminal proceeding. Now why would he say that?

23 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:21:14pm

re: #22 Cap’n Magic

More like a rolling streamed archive where only those who are targets will be kept past some arbitrary time period-say, 90-180 days-after that, all they’ll have is the metadata. Since voice data is highly compressed, it would indeed be possible to record all voice traffic, and domestic LE has for the longest time been always demanding for backdoors in one form or another. Since the NSA’s purpose is supposively pure SIGINT.

re: #14 Gus

Also notice in his CNN conversation that he specifically stated that the FBI couldn’t use that data in a criminal proceeding. Now why would he say that?

Because they would have to have been obtained without a warrant.

24 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:24:45pm

Or, mass voice collection would be inherently done without a warrant. You could then use that voice intelligence in your investigation but you couldn’t use whatever was said in that conversation because it was obtained without a warrant. They would have to develop a case using legally obtained evidence.

25 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:26:27pm

Nadler’s question, starting at 1:45 in the video above:

NADLER: Under Section 215, if you’ve gotten information from metadata and you as a result of that think that, “gee, this phone number, 873 whatever, looks suspicious and we ought to actually get the contents of that phone” — of that phone, do you — do you need a new specific warrant?

It is clear that Nadler is asking about gaining access to content beyond the metadata. Your suggestion that “this entire discussion was about metadata” is plainly wrong.

26 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:26:34pm

Plz retwt!

27 red panda  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:31:19pm

If you listen carefully, it’s obvious that Mueller himself is the person who answered Nadler’s question in the closed door session. Mueller is perplexed because he believes he has answered the same question the same way both times — but Nadler thinks he’s hearing something different.

Looks to me like Nadler misunderstood what he heard in the closed door session. Then McCullagh portrays this exchange as though Nadler heard something different from someone else in the closed session. This slight misrepresentation is enough to create an entirely false narrative.

28 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:32:41pm

The American Media = Ministry of Truth.

29 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:33:16pm

re: #25 earthanimal

Nadler’s question, starting at 1:45 in the video above:

NADLER: Under Section 215, if you’ve gotten information from metadata and you as a result of that think that, “gee, this phone number, 873 whatever, looks suspicious and we ought to actually get the contents of that phone” — of that phone, do you — do you need a new specific warrant?

It is clear that Nadler is asking about gaining access to content beyond the metadata. Your suggestion that “this entire discussion was about metadata” is plainly wrong.

Transcript:

NADLER: Under Section 215, if you’ve gotten information from metadata and you as a result of that think that, “gee, this phone number, 873 whatever, looks suspicious and we ought to actually get the contents of that phone” — of that phone, do you — do you need a new specific warrant?

MUELLER: You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information. So you need the subscriber information. You would have to get probably a national security letter to get that subscriber information.

NADLER: And to…

MUELLER: And then, if you wanted to do more…

NADLER: You wanted to listen to the phone?

MUELLER: Then you have to get a special — a particularized order from…

NADLER: Particularized…

MUELLER: … the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.

NADLER: Now is the answer you just gave me classified…

MUELLER: Is what?

NADLER: The answer you just gave me classified in any way?

MUELLER: I don’t think so.

NADLER: OK, then I can ask the — then I can say the following: We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that, and you didn’t need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict…

MUELLER: I’m not certain that it’s the same answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to…

NADLER: Well, I asked the question both times, and I think it’s the same question. So maybe you’d better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

MUELLER: I will — I will do that. That — that is my understanding of the process.

NADLER: OK. I don’t — I don’t question it’s your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day, and I wanted to take this opportunity to…

All we have is Nadler saying he heard the opposite the other day. Mueller did not say “the NSA is listening to phone calls” all the time. Nadler also admits that he was or could possibly have been confused. There is nothing in this exchange, which Declan McCullagh is basing his story on, that proves Declan’s claim. All he has is that Nadler THINKS he heard otherwise at a previous briefing.

30 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:35:02pm

Find the previous briefing then. Unless it was a classified briefing.

31 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:38:08pm

Nadler himself hasn’t even said this. Don’t you think Nadler would be the first to report this? This briefing was on the 15th. We have to wait 2 days for some libertarian journalist at CNET to report this, make that mis-report this, and make an assumption based on Nadler’s confusion?

32 wheat-dogghazi  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:38:11pm

How reliable is Nadler as a source? In other words, does he have a clue about the technology required for this kind of surveillance? It’s entirely possible he misunderstood the initial testimony, or misheard it.

33 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:38:59pm

re: #24 Gus

Then what authorizes the US government to collect mass voice data, especially given FCC regulations and wiretap laws?

34 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:39:18pm

re: #29 Gus

But what he thinks he heard otherwise is NOT what is claimed.

He’s saying he heard that the NSA can get the metadata for any US citizen’s phone without a court order. He’s NOT saying he heard the NSA can listen to everyone’s phone calls without a court order.

Even his more limited claim is probably bullshit, but CNET just flat out distorted this entire exchange.

35 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:42:23pm

re: #33 Cap’n Magic

Then what authorizes the US government to collect mass voice data, especially given FCC regulations and wiretap laws?

That would have to be a conspiracy theory without evidence. It would likely require the cooperation of the telecoms. Which would mean they would have to be either cooperating and lying or be stupid enough to let the fed record everything their customers transmit under their noses.

36 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:42:56pm

re: #29 Gus

I agree that McCullagh’s headline claim is not substantiated. Like everyone else here, I have no way of evaluating the reliability of Nadler’s source. But the suggestion that the entire article is bogus because the subject of the question was metadata and not phone content, as this post suggests, is false.

37 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:43:09pm

re: #34 Charles Johnson

But what he thinks he heard otherwise is NOT what is claimed.

He’s saying he heard that the NSA can get the metadata for any US citizen’s phone without a court order. He’s NOT saying he heard the NSA can listen to everyone’s phone calls without a court order.

Even his more limited claim is probably bullshit, but CNET just flat out distorted this entire exchange.

Oops, important note there.

38 ProTARDISLiberal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:47:15pm

Well, I finished Series 3 of Doctor Who today. I want to summarize the best and worst of all seasons I have seen the entirety of:

Season 1 Best: The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. Fantastic Episodes. Very good creep factor, and a compelling story without a real villain. Also introduced the first male companion since Turlough. I can’t explain how awesome these episodes are. This is the reason Queen Elizabeth II thinks 9 is the best.

Season 1 Worst: Aliens of London/World War 3: Not bad, just a little bizarre. Starting with the farting aliens (yes I said that), and an ending that is the definition of unsatisfying (A spaceship plowing through Big Ben is a hoax? Really?). Not to mention the appearance of Jackie Tyler again. Her character was more than a little annoying, and didn’t get better til Season 2.

Season 2 Best: School Reunion. The reintroduction of Sarah Jane Smith, and K-9. It was brilliant to see the old and new generations interacting.The Girl in the Fireplace is a close runner-up.

Season 2 Worst: Love & Monsters. Oh god, the less said about this, the better. Easily the Worst story in the New Series. Possibly in Doctor Who history. Don’t believe me? I’ll let this video explain.

Season 3 Best: Blink. A good episode that introduces the Weeping Angels, a very creepy monster within Doctor Who. The Doctor only appears sporadically, and it gets the time-travel nature of the show across very well. So long as you don’t mind scaring yourself or your friends behind the sofa, a good episode to introduce Doctor Who with.

Season 3 Worst:The Runaway Bride. Donna’s characterization did not start well. Not only that, but the Queen of the Racnoss spoke in an odd style that I simply couldn’t get used to. It was also horrible to see how little those around her cared about Donna.

Season 7a Best:Angels Take Manhattan. The end of the Ponds. It shows how much Amy and Rory have developed as characters, and how Amy matured. As well as showing how broken the Doctor can be when his companions go away. I legitimately started to tear up.The Statue of Liberty thing did make me tilt my head though.

Season 7a Worst: None of them had outrageous issues to stand out, but this half a series had a Toodling Along issue. Like there was now big direction, aside from building up to the departure of the Ponds. If I would say the weakest episode was The Doctor, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. The plot was a little shoestring at times, but the general fuzziness of being a Christmas Episode helped it out.

Season 7b Best:The Name of the Doctor. An episode showing the nature of the Doctor and Clara. Both were willing to take heavy risks to save others. The Paternoster Gang were great as always, and River Song was given a good swan song. Hide was a close second.

Season 7b Worst: Nightmare in Silver. Neil Gaiman had the mission of making the Cybermen scary again. He did succeed, but many other things in the episode suffered heavily. Again, not a bad episode, but the weakest.

39 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:47:25pm

re: #34 Charles Johnson

But what he thinks he heard otherwise is NOT what is claimed.

He’s saying he heard that the NSA can get the metadata for any US citizen’s phone without a court order. He’s NOT saying he heard the NSA can listen to everyone’s phone calls without a court order.

Even his more limited claim is probably bullshit, but CNET just flat out distorted this entire exchange.

Nadler:

OK, then I can ask the — then I can say the following: We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that, and you didn’t need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict…

Mueller says you need a national security letter to get the specific information. Then you get the warrant for a wire tap. So Nadler is also mixing up getting the user information with a wiretap which are two procedures.

40 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:47:35pm

The local liberal blowhard wants this to be true so bad!

41 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:48:29pm

re: #35 Gus

Maybe that explains why Nacchio is serving time (compromised as he is), while the other telecom CEO’s aren’t.

42 Targetpractice  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:49:05pm

re: #34 Charles Johnson

But what he thinks he heard otherwise is NOT what is claimed.

He’s saying he heard that the NSA can get the metadata for any US citizen’s phone without a court order. He’s NOT saying he heard the NSA can listen to everyone’s phone calls without a court order.

Even his more limited claim is probably bullshit, but CNET just flat out distorted this entire exchange.

Everybody trying to jump on the bandwagon before it gets away from them.

43 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:50:41pm

re: #41 Cap’n Magic

Maybe that explains why Nacchio is serving time, while the other telecom CEO’s aren’t.

Well, then it’s a conspiracy theory. Nacchio would have had to been set up by the feds for a 3 billion dollar insider trading case.

44 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:54:14pm

re: #21 Gus

Boobs.

Shit smells bad.

45 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:54:54pm

re: #43 Gus

Sure-a conspiracy theory which resulted in the Feds granting the telco’s retroactive immunity, making them de-facto agents of the government.

46 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:59:02pm
47 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 7:59:44pm

Golly, Twitter is alight with this story now! Journalism has degenerated quite a bit since Greenwald published his bullshit. Now the partisan hacks show their true colors! And the worst part is the unholy alliance between the far left and the paleo-libertards. Rand Paul/Bernie Sanders 2016!

48 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:01:58pm

re: #47 teleskiguy

Golly, Twitter is alight with this story now! Journalism has degenerated quite a bit since Greenwald published his bullshit. Now the partisan hacks show their true colors! And the worst part is the unholy alliance between the far left and the paleo-libertards. Rand Paul/Bernie Sanders 2016!

Which is why we shouldn’t take Rand Paul’s presidential hopes for granted. It just takes the right emotional trigger to swing what you think are far left people to the far right (without their being aware of said shift).

49 red panda  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:04:13pm

re: #36 earthanimal

Um … Nadler’s source is Mueller himself.

Mueller is the person who answered the question in the closed session.

50 122 Year Old Obama  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:05:19pm

re: #19 Gus

That’s it? No one has any comments?

I’ve firmly established myself as a man of few words in the past. :P

51 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:05:19pm
52 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:06:30pm

re: #48 darthstar

Which is why we shouldn’t take Rand Paul’s presidential hopes for granted. It just takes the right emotional trigger to swing what you think are far left people to the far right (without their being aware of said shift).

Good point. I was once tempted by the libertine snake oil. Way back in ‘07 I liked the idea Ron Paul for President, he was spouting all kinds of socially liberal things. Then you peer a little deeper and realize that most of the modern libertarian movement is kooky and unrealistic. And Ron and Rand Paul? Those fucks are so out of the mainstream. I’ll never forget that Maddow episode where Rand said that the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea.

53 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:07:27pm

I’m really beginning to get a strong scent of ratfuckery.

54 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:07:45pm

re: #52 teleskiguy

Good point. I was once tempted by the libertine snake oil. Way back in ‘07 I liked the idea Ron Paul for President, he was spouting all kinds of socially liberal things. Then you peer a little deeper and realize that most of the modern libertarian movement is kooky and unrealistic. And Ron and Rand Paul? Those fucks are so out of the mainstream. I’ll never forget that Maddow episode where Rand said that the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea.

Yeah, I liked Ron Paul myself for about three or four weeks, then I took a step back and thought about what he was saying.

55 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:08:16pm

re: #53 Charles Johnson

I’m really beginning to get a strong scent of ratfuckery.

Who? And how? And is there video?

56 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:08:23pm

re: #53 Charles Johnson

I’m really beginning to get a strong scent of ratfuckery.

Sorry, I’ll go take a shower.

57 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:09:18pm

Also, Declan McCullagh got this from a LaRouche blog. Posted on 6/14 (yesterday).

58 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:10:29pm
59 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:11:00pm

re: #48 darthstar

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

60 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:12:49pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

Do you really think they’d be any different if they got power? If so, I have cheap bridge you’d be interested in…

61 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:12:52pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

Oh brother.

62 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:14:25pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

Rhino party!

63 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:14:39pm

Here come the Paulians.

64 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:15:14pm

re: #54 darthstar

Yeah, I liked Ron Paul myself for about three or four weeks, then I took a step back and thought about what he was saying.

The 5-minute rule, right?

65 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:15:35pm

re: #34 Charles Johnson

He’s saying he heard that the NSA can get the metadata for any US citizen’s phone without a court order. He’s NOT saying he heard the NSA can listen to everyone’s phone calls without a court order.

Nadler is definitely saying that he heard that the NSA can get more than just metadata without a court order. His question to Mueller was about getting additional information based on metadata already obtained. When Mueller says a FISA court is necessary to get that additional information, Nadler says that he’s heard otherwise.

I don’t see how anyone can watch the video and think that the subject of the question is metadata. The question was about access to further information. That much is clear.

66 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:16:37pm

re: #63 Charles Johnson

Here come the Paulians.

Paulbots - enabling fascism one dope smoker at a time.

67 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:16:39pm

Kevin Drum airs a tiny whiff of skepticism on this story:

It’s not clear precisely what “information from that telephone” means, or whether this applies to all calls or only to non-U.S. calls. It’s also possible that Nadler was confusing the ability of an analyst to get subscriber information for a phone number with the ability to listen to the call itself. Another possibility is that this applies only to phone content that’s already been acquired by warrant and is currently in NSA’s database. Or perhaps it applies to real-time wiretapping, but only if an analyst concludes that the target is a non-U.S. person already covered by a “programmatic” (i.e., broad-based) Section 702 warrant.

From Mother Jones.

68 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:16:48pm

They’re heeereee.

69 bratwurst  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:18:06pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Image: no-thank-you.jpg

70 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:18:12pm

The sickly-sweet fragrance of ratfuckery is getting stronger.

71 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:19:04pm

re: #61 Charles Johnson

“Only the paranoid survive.” —Andy Grove, former CEO, Intel

72 ProTARDISLiberal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:19:06pm

re: #68 Charles Johnson

Get to the bunkers! Prepare to defend!

Hide the Children!

73 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:19:13pm

re: #66 William Barnett-Lewis

Paulbots - enabling fascism one dope smoker at a time.

The powerful hand of the free market will take care of all ills. It will bring us a selfish utopia.

And if it doesn’t, tough shit if you’re born the wrong colour or economic class.

74 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:20:04pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

Only a complete idiot would vote for a libertarian candidate.

75 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:22:27pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

Bullshit.

In American mainstream politics, there’s the left (the Democrats), there’s the right (the non-TPer Republicans), then there’s the groups that you champion.

They reside in where the political spectrum circles and implodes on itself, a place where naive idealists, outright Black Helicopter kooks, anarchists, and minarchists reside.

You must be smoking some really good shit to fall for that fool’s paradise.

Image: ari-gold-gtfo-sm.gif

76 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:23:41pm

re: #59 Cap’n Magic

2016 is too far away: if you really want to put fear into Washington, don’t vote for a Democrat or GOP rep in the mid-terms: vote Green/independent/libertarian.

Otherwise, expect more of the same left/right kabuki theater.

My Green Party candidate for House was some 9/11 truther nutcase. The libertarian was just some guy that was crazier than the Teabaggers.

77 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:24:24pm

re: #73 Walking Spanish Down the Hall

As we saw with Slick Willy’s capitulation to Greenspan in the 1990s, which led to the current malaise we’re in now, may I kindly ask you to perform aerial intercourse though a perambulating torus-shaped pastry?

re: #74 Charles Johnson

If you think I’d blindly vote for a libertarian you’d be sadly mistaken.

78 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:26:34pm

re: #77 Cap’n Magic

If you’d ever fucked a donut in mid air you wouldn’t say that so casually.

79 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:27:22pm

re: #74 Charles Johnson

If you think I’d blindly vote for a libertarian you’d be sadly mistaken.

If you vote for a libertarian you’re being deliberately blind.

80 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:27:48pm

re: #71 Cap’n Magic

“Only the paranoid survive.” —Andy Grove, former CEO, Intel

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

81 bratwurst  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:27:51pm

Aside from their largely rancid ideology, libertarians have also proven to be some of the most humorless and all-around obnoxious trolls on LGF over the years.

82 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:28:42pm

So, what is Greenwald up to right now? Is he ‘too busy to write due to the conversation he initiated?’ When I saw that the other day I about spit my coffee I laughed so hard. Seriously…is there any chance he’ll get invited on TV and given the thorough beat down he deserves?

83 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:29:02pm

re: #81 bratwurst

Aside from their largely rancid ideology, libertarians have also proven to be some of the most humorless and all-around obnoxious trolls on LGF over the years.

It’s not a coincidence.

84 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:29:19pm

re: #79 Charles Johnson

If you vote for a libertarian you’re being deliberately blind.

If you vote libertarian, you’re the donut.

85 simoom  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:32:41pm

re: #65 earthanimal

Nadler is definitely saying that he heard that the NSA can get more than just metadata without a court order.

The court order Greenwald and Snowden leaked was for Verizon call metadata, minus subscriber name and address and billing/financial information. That’s why Muller was explaining that they have to get additional legal orders to go back to the telecom companies, to even get the subscriber name. That’s what they were discussing.

86 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:33:00pm

re: #81 bratwurst

Aside from their largely rancid ideology, libertarians have also proven to be some of the most humorless and all-around obnoxious trolls on this board over the years.

The epitome of INTERNET….SERIOUS BUSINESS.

87 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:33:55pm

Birchers.

88 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:34:38pm

Wow, that LGF Spy is comprehensive. A new Lizard has hatched. Welcome, coporateownedusa!

Hey Charles, is registration open all the time now?

I remember when I registered. I had to get lucky and wait until it was open, which didn’t seem very often at all. I remember sitting there in my apartment bogged down in finals and I clicked over to LGF and registration was open, and I just lit up! It was like I found a really cool ski line or just discovered a rad singletrack trail, I was like, “I’m in!”

89 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:35:44pm

re: #85 simoom

MUELLER: And then, if you wanted to do more…

NADLER: You wanted to listen to the phone?

MUELLER: Then you have to get a special — a particularized order from…

NADLER: Particularized…

MUELLER: … the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.

90 abolitionist  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:38:56pm

This may be disturbingly relevent:
[quote]
The world is drowning in data.

Where do we come in? Well, a lot of the public information that’s on the internet gets indexed. There’s a lot of companies that do this. …Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible.

So, that’s Google’s slogan; that’s not ours.

We’re much more interested in organizing the world’s PRIVATE information and making it not only universally accessible but USEFUL.
[end-quote]

[slide]
PRIVATE DATA [categories:]
* Finance

* Government -
Intelligence,
Defense,
Law Enforcement

* Health Care

* Cyber Security
[end-slide]

The above is near the beginning of the video:
Youtube Video

Refs to PRISM:
PRISM overview
PRISM examples

Some would have you believe Palantir is a purely commercial venture that simply grew out of the remnants of PayPal following it’s sale to eBay. That’s not accurate.

Ref:
Palantir Night Live - Mike Hurley & Brian Cunningham
Youtube Video

“I was retained by Palantir in September of 2006; when we held our first Government Conference, there were 15 people there, and 10 of them were us.” -BC

“The founders of Palantir went to the intelligence communities, specifically to the CIA venture capital fund …and volunteered with their own money to build software for catching terrorists, and worked back and forth for years to get that software done.” -BC

Ref:
Over the Horizon New Palantir Initiatives for Next-Gen
Privacy & Civil Liberties Protections
Youtube Video

Rollouts are already underway (LAPD, for example) and coming soon to smartphones (for some clients), if one believes the PR talk.

91 Targetpractice  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:39:25pm

re: #82 darthstar

So, what is Greenwald up to right now? Is he ‘too busy to write due to the conversation he initiated?’ When I saw that the other day I about spit my coffee I laughed so hard. Seriously…is there any chance he’ll get invited on TV and given the thorough beat down he deserves?

According to what he was saying the other day, he’s too busy working on the next set of stories to join in the “debate.”

92 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:41:41pm

Single issue registrants.

93 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:41:56pm

Paulians say the darnedest things.

94 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:42:28pm

They register because they’re mad at the article.

95 Lancelot Link  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:42:39pm

Even funnier Declan McCullagh tidbit - he’s been a semi-regular guest on the Alex Jones show for quite a few years now.

96 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:42:48pm

Come in with their guns ablazing! Pew! Pew! Pew!

97 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:43:37pm

re: #76 Gus

So there was no other independent candidate on your ballet?

re: #75 AlexRogan

Believe me, if I had such good shit to smoke as you imply, I wouldn’t be posting here. Instead, I’d be listening to the finale of Mahler’s 3rd symphony or the finale of Deryck Cook’s final realization of Mahler’s Tenth. (Or maybe Leonard Bernstein’s only recording with the Berlin Philharmonic of Mahler’s 9th.)

re: #78 darthstar

Give that man a cigar!

re: #79 Charles Johnson

If you believe that all Libertarians are 100% in lockstep with each other then you have an observation problem; for they are not. unlike the current batshit crazy GOP, the mwide variety of dems like Blue Dogs and hardcore bombtrhowers like Grayson, there’s a wide swath. If you can’t recognize/discrimmate between them, that’s you’re problem, not mine.

98 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:44:35pm


Sorry for listing your own tweets on your website Charles. I just wanted to say that I hope you don’t plan on doing this all night, because people seem to be swallowing the snake oil hook line sinker, all that.

What happened to examining the evidence? Where’s the integrity in distorting the facts?

99 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:44:47pm

re: #97 Cap’n Magic

So there was no other independent candidate on your ballet?

re: #75 AlexRogan

Believe me, if I had such good shit to smoke as you imply, I wouldn’t be posting here. Instead, I’d be listening to the finale of Mahler’s 3rd symphony or the finale of Deryck Cook’s final realization of Mahler’s Tenth. (Or maybe Leonard Bernstein’s only recording with the Berlin Philharmonic of Mahler’s 9th.)

re: #78 darthstar

Give that man a cigar!

re: #79 Charles Johnson

If you believe that all Libertarians are 100% in lockstep with each other then you have an observation problem; for they are not. Much like Blue Dogs and hardcore bombtrhowers like Grayson, there’s a wide swath. If you can’t recognize/discrimmate between them, that’s you’re problem, not mine.

They were all whacked. Trust me. Dianna Degette is to the left of me on many issues but she’s still the best candidate on the ticket.

100 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:47:29pm
101 Heywood Jabloeme  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:50:27pm

“The NSA does not need a court order to search the database it maintains of the call data surrendered by the nation’s telecommunications firms, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told reporters on Thursday”

“To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,” Feinstein told reporters. “Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it’s one number or two numbers. That’s all you have… if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.”

“Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, “that’s my understanding.”

“So even though the NSA or other intelligence agencies must return to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get authorization to eavesdrop on a call, they do not need to ask the court to search the “metadata” that NSA collects from telecom providers. Officials must only conclude for themselves that they have a “reasonable, articulable” suspicion about someone and then they may query their database.”

“”It is misunderstood that Americans’ private conversations — emails, phone calls — are being rummaged through by the government,” he said. “That is not true. Only when there is probable cause, given from a court order by a federal judge, can they go into the content of phone calls and emails in order to be able to disrupt a terrorist plot.”

politico.com

So, I think that some questions still remain:

Is the collection of “metadata” across all carriers all the time i.e every phone call in the US? How would it be useful otherwise? Then, how long do they keep it? If forever, is it worth preventing a few terrorist attacks against the US to have the Fed Govt keep forever, a database that records the metadata for everyone in the US?

102 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:52:19pm

There is one way we could clarify this. OK, they want transparency? Then declassify the exchange Nadler references.

103 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:52:52pm
104 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 8:59:52pm

Wait!

105 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:01:32pm

re: #101 Heywood Jabloeme

So, I think that some questions still remain:

Is the collection of “metadata” across all carriers all the time i.e every phone call in the US? How would it be useful otherwise? Then, how long do they keep it? If forever, is it worth preventing a few terrorist attacks against the US to have the Fed Govt keep forever, a database that records the metadata for everyone in the US?

That would be a tremendous amount of largely mundane data for the government to keep. Seems wasteful for the government to store all that data forever. If the data is collected by every telecom company should there be a reasonable limit on the time they can keep it?

106 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:04:56pm

re: #104 Gus

Wait!

What are we waiting for, and should I bait my breath?

107 simoom  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:07:20pm

re: #89 earthanimal

OK I’ve transcribed it. Mueller is saying, as the leaked order says, that they don’t even have the subscriber names, just the call logs with numbers and some other metadata. He’s saying additional authorization is required to even go and request the subscriber name, and then a FISA Court order would be needed to actually get the recordings from the telecom companies.

Mueller: As we all know, these particular records are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that to be the case. And secondly, the determination as to the legality and that standard has been addressed by the FISA Court, in the affirmative, to support this particular program.

[someone introduces Nadler]

Nadler: Let me ask you the following. Under section 215, and I’d also like to associate myself with the remarks that a dragnet subpoena for every telephone record, etc — every e-mail record, though I know they don’t do that anymore, though they could again tomorrow, and they did do it — certainly makes a mockery of the relevance standard in section 215. If everything in the world is relevant then there’s no meaning to that word. Some of us offered amendments to narrow that several years ago and in retrospect maybe we should have adopted those amendments. But that’s no excuse for a misinterpretation of relevance to the point that there is no such meaning to the word.

Now secondly, under section 215 if you’ve gotten information from metadata, and you as a result of that thing that, “gee, this phone number, 873-whatever, looks suspicious and we aught to actually get the contents of that phone. Do you need a new specific warrant?

Mueller: You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information, so if you need the subscriber information you would need to probably get a National Security Letter to get that subscriber information. And then if you wanted to do more —

Nadler: If you wanted to listen to the phone —

Mueller: Then you would have to get a special, a particularized order from the FISA Court directed at that particular phone and that particular individual.

Nadler: Now is the answer you just gave me classified?

Mueller: Is what?

Nadler: Is the answer you just gave me classified in any way?

Mueller: I don’t think so.

Nadler: OK, then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. In other-words what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.

Mueller: I’m not sure it’s the answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Nadler: OK, I don’t question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to —

Mueller: I’d be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.

108 Cap'n Magic  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:08:02pm

re: #105 teleskiguy

As we saw with AT&T, they didn’t keep anything except what they needed for billing purposes-the inflight stream was directly piped into the NSA.

Since T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless are foreign-owned, there is a limit as to what they are able to provide sans court order-but if their voice traffic flows through a connection that has an NSA interception point, then all bets are off.

109 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:09:28pm

None so blind.

110 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:09:29pm

re: #106 Walking Spanish Down the Hall

What are we waiting for, and should I bait my breath?

False alarm. Then my internets wents blackazoid.

111 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:16:18pm

re: #110 Gus

False alarm. Then my internets wents blackazoid.

So I don’t have to eat worms?

112 simoom  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:19:51pm

re: #107 simoom

Doh, I’m sad. Gus already transcribed it all above responding to the same person :P

113 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:20:08pm

Hey there you go! Some liberals who have examined the evidence!

114 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:22:43pm

re: #112 simoom

Doh, I’m sad. Gus already transcribed it all above responding to the same person :P

It’s cool. This is the internets. I got it from the LaRouche site. Irony double plus.

115 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:23:14pm

re: #107 simoom

Kudos on the transcription. So, I think we should be in agreement that the question was addressing access to information beyond metadata, whether that is just names or also recordings. Nadler states that Mueller’s answer to this question conflicts with what he has been told regarding access to information beyond the metadata. That is why I (and others like Brad Friedman, above) think that the criticism offered here — that the discussion was about metadata only — is clearly off base.

116 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:23:23pm

This whole thing is like a LaRouche, Libertarian, John Birch Society, Manarchist cluster fuck.

117 DelusionDeluge  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:25:19pm

Today’s libertarian left/right cluster-conglomerate: flip the f out when a headline suggests a complete falsehood that jibes with their paranoia. Remain, at best, silent when legislatures come at 50+% of the population with transvaginal ultrasound wands.

Freedom?

118 AlexRogan  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:26:49pm

I see that a certain someone has learned how to downding; it doesn’t matter to me, because I have karma to burn.

Sometimes you just can’t spam polls/dings on the Internet to get your desired result.

119 wheat-dogghazi  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:29:23pm

re: #117 DelusionDeluge

Today’s libertarian left/right cluster-conglomerate: flip the f out when a headline suggests a complete falsehood that jibes with their paranoia. Remain, at best, silent when legislatures come at 50+% of the population with transvaginal ultrasound wands.

Freedom?

Freedom for me. Not for you.

//

120 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:30:05pm

re: #118 AlexRogan

I see that a certain someone has learned how to downding; it doesn’t matter to me, because I have karma to burn.

Sometimes you just can’t spam everything on the Internet to get your desired result.

Down ding me damn it! I have almost a quarter million. I don’t down ding people much anymore. Only when I’m in a mood or something.

121 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:30:35pm

Or if they say some super serious creepy shit.

122 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:32:05pm

re: #119 wheat-dogghazi

Freedom for me. Not for you.

//

The dark navy blue windbreaker of libertarianism. Single issue civil liberty.

123 simoom  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:32:30pm

re: #115 earthanimal

It’s two separate things getting a bit jumbled together. The first question about going from the phone number to the “contents of the phone” Mueller takes as a question about what you need to get to go back and ask for the subscriber name from the telco. Nadler then interrupts asking about an actual wiretap or perhaps getting the stored recordings from the telco, and Mueller says you’d need a FISA court order to request that. Nadler then says that in an earlier classified briefing he got the impression the analyst could get the “the specific information from that telephone” without a warrant. Mueller says that’s not his understanding. Nadler says it’s not his either, but there’s a conflict there. Mueller says I’ll get you a clarification on it. Nadler says thanks.

124 wheat-dogghazi  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:37:05pm

re: #122 Gus

The dark navy blue windbreaker of libertarianism. Single issue civil liberty.

Which is one of the issues I have with libertarians — their seeming inability to apply their political theory unilaterally. They zero in on certain pet causes, while ignoring other issues that are equally as important, or more important than their own.

125 Lidane  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:39:18pm

re: #74 Charles Johnson

Only a complete idiot would vote for a libertarian candidate.

Correction: Only a complete idiot would vote for a Libertarian and mean it.

I’ve voted Libertarian in the past because certain local and state races around here in Texas would only have a GOP candidate or a Libertarian. I figured I’d rather waste my vote on the Libertarian moron who has no chance of winning than on a Republican.

I won’t do that anymore, but I’ve done it in the past. These days, I’ll just leave a race blank if that happens.

126 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:40:07pm

re: #123 simoom

It’s two separate things getting a bit jumbled together. The first question about going from the phone number to the “contents of the phone” Mueller takes as a question about what you need to get to go back and ask for the subscriber name from the telco. Nadler then interrupts asking about an actual wiretap or perhaps getting the stored recordings from the telco, and Mueller says you’d need a FISA court order to request that. Nadler then says that in an earlier classified briefing he got the impression the analyst could get the “the specific information from that telephone” without a warrant. Mueller says that’s not his understanding. Nadler says it’s not his either, but there’s a conflict there. Mueller says I’ll get you a clarification on it. Nadler says thanks.

“Get the specific information from the telephone” is a very different thing than “listen to the conversations on the telephone.”

127 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:42:08pm

re: #123 simoom

Yes, that’s pretty much how I read it too. It is somewhat unclear whether the subject of “the specific information from the telephone” that Nadler claims to have heard can be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant” refers to just subscriber name or also to actual recordings. I think the more natural reading in context is that he is referring to recordings, but reasonable people could disagree.

128 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:44:20pm

re: #127 earthanimal

Yes, that’s pretty much how I read it too. It is somewhat unclear whether the subject of “the specific information from the telephone” that Nadler claims to have heard can be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant” refers to just subscriber name or also to actual recordings. I think the more natural reading in context is that he is referring to recordings, but reasonable people could disagree.

What “recordings?” You’re not seriously saying that the government is recording every phone call in the US?

Never mind - I can see you probably are.

129 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:44:41pm

Peak tinfoil.

130 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:44:55pm
131 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:45:07pm

And now…

132 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:47:35pm

Arguing with emos is just as pointless as arguing with wingnuts, I’m afraid.

133 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:50:28pm

Now they’re demanding that I “correct” this article.

I really hope they’re not counting on that.

134 earthanimal  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 9:52:38pm

re: #128 Charles Johnson

What “recordings?” You’re not seriously saying that the government is recording every phone call in the US?

Never mind - I can see you probably are.

No, I don’t think that needs to be assumed here. But Nadler had just asked what would be necessary “If you wanted to listen to the phone…”, so I assume this may refer only to subsequent wiretapping, unless recordings exist from pre-existing surveillance.

135 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:01:28pm

re: #128 Charles Johnson

What “recordings?” You’re not seriously saying that the government is recording every phone call in the US?

Never mind - I can see you probably are.

The phone companies certainly don’t record the call, so the gov’t couldn’t possibly request the phone conversation.

The gov’t would have to record every call for the argument to have any validity at all. How much would that cost, infrastructure wise?

136 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:02:51pm
137 teleskiguy  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:08:22pm

LGF had a term for crazy/ill-informed liberals. Moonbats, was it?

138 Gus  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:10:55pm

re: #137 teleskiguy

LGF had a term for crazy/ill-informed liberals. Moonbats, was it?

Circle. Of. Derp.

139 darthstar  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:40:58pm
140 Targetpractice  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:46:11pm

re: #139 darthstar

No shit. Obama won reelection and yet they’re still jumping at shadows.

141 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 11:04:32pm

I’m closing registration tonight because I can see from the referrers page that this post has stirred up a giant libertarian shitstorm.

142 Targetpractice  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 11:23:05pm

re: #141 Charles Johnson

I’m closing registration tonight because I can see from the referrers page that this post has stirred up a giant libertarian shitstorm.

I really do find myself wondering more and more if Greenwald did all this shit just to make Son of Paul look reasonable…and I can’t actually believe I typed that just now.

143 simoom  Sat, Jun 15, 2013 11:42:08pm

re: #135 Walking Spanish Down the Hall

The phone companies certainly don’t record the call, so the gov’t couldn’t possibly request the phone conversation.

I don’t know if this is actually accurate but it came up in the debunking of one of Greenwalds previous BS stories. Greenwald took a conspiratorial read on something former FBI officer, Tim Clemente said during a Boston Bombing CNN interview. Someone actually bothered to call Clemente, which Greenwald never did before publishing his screed, and Clemente said Greenwald got it all wrong. But he also made this claim about the telcos in his response:

jeremyduns.net

I called Clemente last night, and asked him about his comments, and Greenwald’s interpretation of them. He told me Greenwald had misunderstood: he hadn’t been claiming that the US government records all phone calls, but that phone companies do. They don’t listen to them, though, and they wipe them clean after some time, as they take up so much memory. In response to the FBI publicizing that Tsarnaev’s wife had called him after they had released a photograph of him as a suspect in the Boston bombing, Clemente was pointing out – while being careful not to give away state secrets – that this meant they had access to her phone company’s metadata. The fact she had made such a call could allow the FBI to obtain a warrant on suspicion of her involvement in the attack, and once they obtained that they would then be able to listen to recordings of calls from her phone.

144 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jun 16, 2013 5:03:42am

re: #20 sauceruney

I am still searching, but I’m pretty sure McCullagh used to write for WND, or they at least linked his stories a lot.

They linked to him, but he was never on WND’s payroll.

145 teresa  Sun, Jun 16, 2013 10:01:20am

I just read at buzzfeed that Rep. Nadler is refuting the CNET report. From the Buzzfeed update: Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Skip Intro
A Birther No More? Trump Makes Maximum Donation to Ted Cruz’s PAC
Donald Trump may not be sure if Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to be president, but he has no problem giving the Tea Party hero a chunk of his fortune. According to a report in The Hill, Trump has donated $5,000 -- the maximum legal amount under current election law -- to Senator Cruz's political action committee, the Jobs Growth and Freedom ...

2 hours, 7 minutes ago
Views: 44 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
FemNaziBitch
‘MOM BABY GOD’ Offers Outsider’s Inside View of Pro-Life Movement : The (402)/411
"It always comes back to God in the end," Burrows said of pro-life efforts. "They try to rebrand themselves as focusing on women's rights, but it really comes down to reinforcing conservative Christian values and pushing it on people." She tried to understand the pro-life movement from the perspective of other young women. Burrows said she could see why they were persuaded by ...

5 hours, 32 minutes ago
Views: 106 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
Randall Gross
Godzilla - Nature Has an Order [HD]
godzillamovie.comfacebook.comIn theaters May 16th. In Summer 2014, the world's most revered monster is reborn as Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures unleash the epic action adventure "Godzilla." From visionary new director Gareth Edwards ("Monsters") comes a powerful story of human courage and reconciliation in the face of titanic forces of nature, when the awe-inspiring Godzilla rises to restore balance as humanity stands defenseless. ...

6 hours, 48 minutes ago
Views: 109 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
palmerskiss
Debate Discrimination - Houston Chronicle
We're glad to see Mayor Annise Parker finally stand up and propose a human rights commission that will provide local due process for victims of public discrimination. Parker told the Chronicle editorial board that she plans to release a formal version of her proposal within the next few weeks, but sometimes the process is just as important as the result. As the energy ...

7 hours, 17 minutes ago
Views: 80 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
cycroft
Russ Campbell’s Blog: Bill C-23, Fair Elections Act Seems Now on Solid Ground
Now that a Sen­ate com­mit­tee has rec­om­mended nine changes to Bill C-23, Fair Elec­tions Act, the leg­is­la­tion seems pretty solid. And, since Pierre Poilievre has, ap­par­ently, in­di­cated pri­vately that he's open to changes, an amended ver­sion of the bill will likely be­come law by this sum­mer. We would prob­a­bly have got­ten to this point ear­lier had not the min­is­ter re­spon­si­ble for the bill ...

9 hours, 47 minutes ago
Views: 63 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
MichaelJ
Live now - 2014 Rip Curl Pro Bells Beach - ASP World Tour
More: 2014 Rip Curl Pro Bells Beach - ASP Iconic Bells Beach in Victoria, Australia once again hosts the world's best surfers for the 41st running of the Bells Beach Contest. New feature in this broadcast: drone cam!

1 day, 5 hours ago
Views: 167 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 3 • Rating: 0
Idle Drifter
Calgary stabbings: How knife crime in Canada can cause ‘moral panic’
What Calgary police chief Rick Hanson called the "worst mass murder" in the city's history didn't end at the barrel of a gun. Instead, the 22-year-old suspect identified on Tuesday as Matthew de Grood is accused of entering the kitchen at a house party, taking "a large knife" and using it to fatally stab four men and one woman, all of whom were students ...

2 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 228 • Comments: 4
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
aagcobb
New York Electoral College: State Joins National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate: New York Electoral College: State Joins National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Instead of pushing for a Constitutional amendment, which would have to be ratified in 38 states, advocates ask individual state legislatures to pass an agreement: that they'll pledge all their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote as soon as enough other states pass the law to ...

3 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 243 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
Political Atheist
The Insane History of Rockets at Jet Propulsion Laboratories
The Rocket Boys In the late 1930s, a group of Caltech graduate students were booted off campus after blowing up (part of!) their building during a rocket test gone awry. Unwilling to give up on the joy of semi-controlled explosions, the students and a few of their friends headed into the San Gabriel Mountains. They picked a deserted gully -- Arroyo Seco -- ...

4 days ago
Views: 276 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
iossarian
Drug Companies Want Your Money
Two thematically-related stories on the BBC at the moment: UK drug company Glaxo 'paid bribes to Polish doctors' UK drug company GlaxoSmithKline is facing a criminal investigation in Poland for allegedly bribing doctors, BBC Panorama has discovered. Tamiflu: Millions wasted on flu drug, claims major report Hundreds of millions of pounds may have been wasted on a drug for flu that works no better ...

4 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 269 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 8 • Rating: 0
 Frank says:

You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream.