When “incidental” intel collection—isn’t incidental

Sharyl Attkisson.com ^ | April 14,2017 | Sharyl Attkisson

[Hojczyk]

I’ve spoken to a small group of reliable, formerly high-placed intelligence officials who have dropped a few interesting tidbits on me of late. Here’s my understanding, based on the discussions:

It’s not true that wiretaps and/or electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens can “only” be done with a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order.

Besides the FISA court, “wiretapping” or electronic surveillance can also be done under Title III authority. The government used this authority, for example, in the Justice Department’s secret Fast and Furious “gunwalking” case.

Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.

The public will rarely know about such presidential directives since most who see them must sign agreements that promise nondisclosure and consent to polygraphs.

Computer surveillance is a grey area in the intelligence community where many insiders argue the traditional privacy restrictions and surveillance rules don’t necessarily apply.

The term “wiretapping” is used in a general sense to refer to electronic eavesdropping, even though the actual “tapping” of “wires” is not routinely necessary with today’s technology and tradecraft.

[G Larry]

This is very detailed.

So much so that even Fox can’t/won’t give it a complete discussion.

MSM won’t even try.

[Mr. K]

The use of the word “incidental” is a technical term NOT intended to mean “by accident”

It is more along the lines of “this incident”

[The_Media_never_lie]

It seems like in popular usage, “incidental” is a trending buzzword used to excuse lawless behavior.

[Red Badger]

from the article:

For example:

1. Locate a foreign target already under CIA surveillance.

2. Have a government agent use the foreign target’s phone and/or computer to make it look like the foreigner contacted the U.S. citizen whose communications are sought. The contacts can be benign, but they establish a record that falsely implies a relationship exists between the U.S. citizen and the foreign target.

3. The government agent can also mimic a communication back from the U.S. citizen to the foreign target, creating an appearance that the U.S. citizen initiated contacts. This could be favorable to justifying a warrant on the U.S. citizen later.

4. The U.S. citizen is now tied to the foreign entity and is now an “incidental” collection target that can be surveilled in a “masked” format. Although “masked,” the surveilling agency knows the U.S. citizen’s identity.

5. If the U.S. citizen does anything that can be construed as illegal or suspicious, it’s possible the intel agency can then receive approval to surveil him directly rather than only “incidentally.”

---

IOW, the Obama Gang circumvented the system for political benefit.

Hang them all.........................

[Red Badger]

It was as ‘incidental’ as Dresden was a BBQ party..............

[ctdonath2]

“Incidental” in terms of “TSA agents (with prompting from another agency) ‘randomly’ selected a passenger for an invasive pat-down and discovered contraband”.

Apparently the Trump incident involved surveilling a particular suspect (however legit or strained the allegation was), implemented by observing _all_ electronic information traffic in/out of the entire building (just to make sure nothing was missed, you see). All that data was collected, cataloged, and - by the rather odd rule change implemented right around then - freely shared with other agencies. “Oh look, Trump campaign info...”

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

It’s not incidental when the primary goal is incidental intelligence.

[Grampa Dave]

Ever wonder how politics turned into a take-no-prisoners blood sport? The New York Times bestselling author of Stonewalled pulls back the curtain on the shady world of opposition research and reveals the dirty tricks those in power use to influence your opinions.

Behind most major political stories in the modern era, there is an agenda; an effort by opposition researchers, spin doctors, and outside interests to destroy an idea or a person. The tactic they use is the Smear.

Every day, Americans are influenced by the Smear without knowing it. Paid forces cleverly shape virtually every image you cross. Maybe you read that Donald Trump is a racist misogynist, or saw someone on the news mocking the Bernie Sanders campaign. The trick of the Smear is that it is often based on some shred of truth, but these media-driven "hit pieces" are designed to obscure the truth. Success hinges on the Smear artist’s ability to remain invisible; to make it seem as if their work is neither calculated nor scripted. It must appear to be precisely what it is not.

Veteran journalist Sharyl Attkisson has witnessed this practice firsthand. After years of being pitched hit jobs and puff pieces, she’s an expert at detecting Smear campaigns. Now, the hard-hitting investigative reporter shares her inside knowledge, revealing how the Smear takes shape and who its perpetrators are—including Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal and, most influential of all, "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin" (National Review) political operative David Brock and his Media Matters for America empire.

Attkisson exposes the diabolical tactics of Smear artists, and their outrageous access to the biggest names in political media—operatives who are corrupting the political process, and discouraging widespread citizen involvement in our democracy.

[Kid Shelleen]

I think its called "reverse targeting".

“Reverse targeting,”
the targeting of a U.S. person under the guise or pretext of targeting a foreigner, is expressly prohibited.

[The_Media_never_lie]

“Reverse targeting,” the targeting of a U.S. person under the guise or pretext of targeting a foreigner, is expressly prohibited.

---

Unless the jury has mind reading capabilities, how would this ever be prosecuted? And, there is no legal entity even interested in prosecuting this.

Then, why all the pretense? Why not just make it legal to enact surveillance any American at any time, so that all will know what can go on by intelligence agencies who spy on American citizens.

[Whenifhow]

PING!!!!

Article and comments, esp #5 and #11

From article:
If the work of targeting an individual cannot be accomplished by government intel officers, it can be contracted out to third parties or to foreign parties who aren’t bound by U.S. law.

Thanks, Hojczyk

[goodnesswins]

Let this sink in y’all. ...

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

Whenifhow :" If the work of targeting an individual cannot be accomplished by government intel officers, it can be contracted out to third parties
or to foreign parties who aren’t bound by U.S. law."

Which is the reason why Obama changed the regulation
only days before he left office.
Obama didn't and couldn't live under this change,
but he imposed it upon his successor.
He is complicit with the release of names, but has enough "deniable distance" as to not be named as a co-defendant.

[Kid Shelleen]

>> Which is the reason why Obama changed the regulation only days before he left office <<

It's not hard to connect the dots. Evelyn Farkas said she was “getting winks and hints from inside” and indeed Obama officials were spreading the information across intelligence agencies. In other words Obama's actions corroborate what Farkas stated in interviews.

[Pagey]

Great and Historical Post!

[matthew fuller]

Sharyl Attkisson is at or near the very top of a list of the very best investigative journalists, along with Diana West.

[Jacquerie]

Strike the 4th Amendment from your pocket Constitution.

What we endure isn’t free government. Article V. Now.