Posted on 01/12/2017 2:07:58 PM PST by mrsmith
...The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.
The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
An awful lot of Fourth Amendment concerns with new technology could be addressed by "all in US" networking. Just a matter of installing servers in the US. Having one's email, etc. protected by US law would be worth a little extra to a consumer. Of course it'd be up to a company to research that and make a fiscally sound determination.
For now, tech companies seem to be hoping the Constitution will be bent to their present business methods.
And nice of Obama to toss this 'hot potato' into our lap!
This is evil. The NSA was prohibited from domestic surveillance. Now they not only do it, but will share it with law enforcement and the FBI.
Folks, this is nothing less than the American Stasi.
As for arguments that its “protecting us”, I would ask from what. If its from terrorism, then I would ask you who is letting them in, and arming and training them over there.
Don’t come break out my windows, then stop by to sell me a security system. God I hate these people.
The NSA has hacked my switches two levels below my internet modem?
And they violated the rules long ago by that 5 eyes arrangement. We spy on the Brits, and they spy on American citizens.
Then they swap data claiming that gets around the old prohibition of not conducting domestic spying.
Snowden will be seen as a hero in 50 years.
>
Remembering the lost lives and destroyed property that resulted from Jamie Gorelick’s unconstitutional “wall” I tend to support this, but it is dramatic. Need a lot more info on this than what the traitorous idiots in the Obama administration and in the ACLU think.
>
What’s the saying re: security vs. Rights?? Expecting our unconstitutional govt to protect We the People, while holding the flood gates at the border\’refugees’\etc. open is beyond ludicrous; it’s asinine. Especially SINCE 9/11.
>
For now, tech companies seem to be hoping the Constitution will be bent to their present business methods.
And nice of Obama to toss this ‘hot potato’ into our lap!
>
Zero? He couldn’t do SH!T w/out the Congress. Too many to count ‘squandered opportunities’.
>
An awful lot of Fourth Amendment concerns with new technology could be addressed by “all in US” networking. Just a matter of installing servers in the US. Having one’s email, etc. protected by US law would be worth a little extra to a consumer
>
Right. The govt would NEVER abuse the unconstitutional powers it gave itself, would it?
Lots of people think, like you, that the US Constitution should be in force outside our national boundaries.
Fine with me, but tough to do.
Doesn’t need the congress for this.
But, one thought I had is that I’d rather see this done by statute- just on general principles.
This was meant for the media. They can now say that Trump did this and the useful idiots will believe it. Now they can accuse Trump of being a Nazi. We all know it’s not true. But the MSM will run with it anyway.
No, “THE PROBLEM” is not that men aren’t angels.
The problem is what to do with extra-territorial information. Information Americans don’t even know they’re sending overseas in many cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.