Well, I’m so intrigued by drop #2745 that I can barely focus....but I would like to post some info I found re [Section 720] of the FISA Amendments Act.
Recent drop Q drop #2740 includes the text of prior Q drop #2043. In that second drop, #2043, Q writes, “[Section 702].” I found some info about that section which I’ll post here.
Title: The Way the NSA Uses Section 702 is Deeply Troubling. Here’s Why.
BY DIA KAYYALIMAY 7, 2014
“Section 702 has been used by the NSA to justify mass collection of phone calls and emails by collecting huge quantities of data directly from the physical infrastructure of communications providers. “
-not just phone messages, Section 702 captures content of communications including emails, instant messages, Facebook messages, web browsing history, and more.
-Section 702 ostensibly targets foreigners but allows complete information sweeps of Americans (who are sometimes/often the real targets)
-The NSA confirmed it was using Section 702 to , “access American’s communications without a warrant, in what is being called the “back door search loophole.” For example, the NSA sometimes searches the 702 for content linked to email addresses of Americans
ransomnote: Much more at the link (below). I’ll add one more excerpt here:
“Unlike searches done under a search warrant authorized by a judge, Section 702 has been used by the NSA to get broad FISA court authorization for general search and seizure of huge swathes of communications. The NSA says this is OK because Section 702 targets foreign citizens. The problem is, once constitutionally protected communications of Americans are swept up, the NSA says these communications are “fair game” for its use.”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-section-702-deeply-troubling-heres-why
Something just jumped out at me.
[RR] said he disagreed with the characterisation of the 4th FISA application but couldn’t go further.
FISA 1: Page
FISA 2: Manafort
FISA 3: Papas
FISA 4: Flynn
They weren’t continuation applications!?! They were traps.
702 allows for storing and archiving but not for unrestrained accessing.
Let’s make an example. Suppose there is a device that accompanies you everywhere you go, records your every location, records your every conversation and the details of the conversation, and keeps a time log of all of this activity. Actually, this device exists in your smartphone even when you think you’ve turned it off. And just as an aside, the NGA is bigger than the NSA.
Suppose then there is such a recording of your life and it is stored and archived but if you are an American citizen, it is never accessed legally without a search warrant.
What good is a CD of information in our hands if we have no authorization to read the contents of the CD?
Honor system.
The NSA is on the honor system to record, store, archive American lives but to never read and analyze the recordings without a proper warrant.
Can the honor system be violated?
Yes.
There are anecdotes where NSA operatives listened in on their boy/girlfriends talking on the phone with paramours to know there was cheating going on. There are anecdotes of NSA operatives listening in on ex-spouses to find out what they were up to, etc.
The principle question is whether the NSA should be allowed to ‘record and store’ our lives by MACHINE without any human ever viewing the product. If a suspect in a crime is really guilty, having access to such a recording could be a great benefit to putting really nasty, bad people in prison.
But it’s a slippery slope that demands attention from great engineering minds of high moral standards.
Much in the same way that there are checks, and counterchecks, foolproof procedures, and fallback procedures for nuclear missile launches, a system for machine recording and storing people’s lives can be engineered to preserve constitutional protections.
So as a result of the abuse we are going to find out about soon, in the aftermath of the fight and settlement, we should see reform of the NSA and all intel agencies that assure an engineering system is in place that gives our government the tools they need while preventing abuse of the rights of Americans. Seems reasonable and logical but will never see the light of day unless the octopus that has its grip on America is driven off.
Presumably for investigative use, not prosecutorial. Without a warrant could not likely be used in court. There has much been said here about we have it all with an apparent eye towards prosecution. It does not work like that (under the Constitution.)
p