OK...How about the other Analysts
Posted on 06/16/2013 7:12:03 PM PDT by Nachum
In a Sunday evening statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Public Affairs Office released this statement, meant to clear up information on the National Security Agency’s data program
"The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress. Members have been briefed on the implementation of Section 702, that it targets foreigners located overseas for a valid foreign intelligence purpose, and that it cannot be used to target Americans anywhere in the world," the full statement reads.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Full title: Top Spy: 'Single Analyst' Cannot 'Eavesdrop on Domestic Communications Without Proper Legal Authorization'
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
OK...How about the other Analysts
Just because you’re told not to doesn’t mean you don’t do it. Hell, that’s like a green light for some folks.
If there was a tool for such eavesdroping, and it was kept locked on a special server, with only a couple of people authorized for that server, and security maintained a control over those people and what they did....I might be willing to believe these folks.
I seriously doubt that they are running the game that way. This Snowden character...it would appear....cracked his way through their passwords and firewalls. So this comment here...doesn’t mean much in the real world.
Could a married analyst eavesdrop?
How about multiple analysts, can they cooperatively eavesdrop?
Did you leave the word "legaly" out, perchance?
Or is it not called eavesdropping if we do it?
And why should I believe that given that the agency [and government] said it wasn't listening in on the conversations at all? Moreover, why should I find any mercy for these who so blatantly defy the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments? — No, they need punished. Government agencies need to find themselves in terror at the idea of overstepping Constitutional bounds.
This seems to be coming out of the office of James Clapper, a proven liar and obfuscator, not a word from which can be believed.
I don’t believe Mr. Top Spy in the least. NSA chief Clapper said he gave Congress a Least Untrue Statement about what his agency was doing. Ergo, I believe none of them.
Section 702. Does lying Crapper mean to admit there’s a 1 to 701. What’s 701; The procedure for aiming cameras in your toilet bowl?
I’m sorry, but this is just pure spin IMO.
There’s too much out there these days for them to stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.
Admitted liar and perjurer assures us he’s telling the truth for real this time.
Not a great deal of trust with these folks.
Define “proper legal authorization.”
Is he calling Jerry Nadler a liar? Oh wait. This was a statement from an office.
What? The analyst has to be married?
So what they are saying is it takes two analysts to bypass the requirement for a warrant.
maybe a “single analyst cannot eavesdrop...” as a matter of policy, but that’s not the same thing as not being capable of doing so. And if they’re capable, they’re doing it.
A group can do what they want.
Spooks / Spys/ Lies = all have the same meaning
That could simply mean that only the analysts who have received proper legal authorization at some point in their careers can do the eavesdropping. But once they have that legal authorization given, they are free to do as they wish. I would imagine it would involve some type of course certificate to learn what they can or cannot do. Like for example: never ever bug the prezzy dude !
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.