FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump

[WorthyNewsBot]

(Worthy News) - The FBI, National Security Agency and CIA are likely to gain expanded surveillance powers under President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, a prospect that has privacy advocates and some lawmakers trying to mobilize opposition.

Trump’s first two choices to head law enforcement and intelligence agencies -- Republican Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Republican Representative Mike Pompeo for director of the Central Intelligence Agency -- are leading advocates for domestic government spying at levels not seen since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. [ Source ]

View the full article

[Running Gator]

Who needs that silly 4th Amendment anyhow.  As long as the government keeps us safe it is ok to hand over our rights and freedoms...

[Running Gator]

Can a country that gives its government unfettered power to spy on its own citizens coupled with the power to detain its own citizens indefinitely , without the right of habeas corpus, be considered a free country?

[SavedByGrace1981]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Who needs that silly 4th Amendment anyhow.  As long as the government keeps us safe it is ok to hand over our rights and freedoms...

So have they thrown out the requirement to get a warrant from a judge?

[Running Gator]

29 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

So have they thrown out the requirement to get a warrant from a judge?

Well, it is not called the NSA warrantless surveillance program for no reason. 

[SavedByGrace1981]

27 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Well, it is not called the NSA warrantless surveillance program for no reason. 

I couldn't find in the article where it stated who is calling it that.  I did see where it referred to communications originating from outside the country not having the warrant requirement, however.

The larger issue here as I see it is the fact that the huge amount of data is "out there" - we're being tracked every time we use a phone or go online.  It's just a fact of life in the 21st century.  Google is tracking our data; advertisers and on-line retailers are tracking our data.  Let's say you go online and buy a Disney DVD.  Take a note then as to how many ads for similar DVDs will 'suddenly appear' in the advertising portion of every website you visit.

It's foolish and naive then to assume the gov't - with vastly more resources - is not 'tracking' our data as well.

It bothers me, but just like endless Progressive and Geico commercials on TV, there's little I can do about it (except in those I can mute the sound).  

If it is indeed warrantless (and not just a critic calling it that) for communications originating IN the US, then that is a concern.  It seems it would have to make its way through Congress - I'd say let's wait and see what happens.  If Congress ends up making it legal to use data gathered without a warrant against someone in a court of law, then I will oppose it.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by SavedByGrace1981

[Running Gator]

6 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I couldn't find in the article where it stated who is calling it that.  I did see where it referred to communications originating from outside the country not having the warrant requirement, however.

The larger issue here as I see it is the fact that the huge amount of data is "out there" - we're being tracked every time we use a phone or go online.  It's just a fact of life in the 21st century.  Google is tracking our data; advertisers and on-line retailers are tracking our data.  Let's say you go online and buy a Disney DVD.  Take a note then as to how many ads for similar DVDs will 'suddenly appear' in the advertising portion of every website you visit.

It's foolish and naive then to assume the gov't - with vastly more resources - is not 'tracking' our data as well.

It bothers me, but just like endless Progressive and Geico commercials on TV, there's little I can do about it (except in those I can mute the sound).  

If it is indeed warrantless (and not just a critic calling it that) for communications originating IN the US, then that is a concern.  It seems it would have to make its way through Congress - I'd say let's wait and see what happens.  If Congress ends up making it legal to use data gathered without a warrant against someone in a court of law, then I will oppose it.

 

Here are some for you...

http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/wmbrts15&section=13

https://americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/kf/nsa_surveillance.pdf

http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/bclr47&section=24

Also, Wikipedia does a nice job with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)

and here are some news articles as well

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html?_r=0

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html

[Running Gator]

17 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

is "out there" - we're being tracked every time we use a phone or go online.  It's just a fact of life in the 21st century.  Google is tracking our data; advertisers and on-line retailers are tracking our data.  Let's say you go online and buy a Disney DVD.  Take a note then as to how many ads for similar DVDs will 'suddenly appear' in the advertising portion of every website you visit.

It's foolish and naive then to assume the gov't - with vastly more resources - is not 'tracking' our data as well.

 

 

This is a very different thing than the government recording, reading ,listening to your emails, text, phone calls and more.

When I buy something online as you speak of I fully accept the fact that the data is being tracked and used, that is part of the deal with you choose to buy online.   It is no different than all the "discount" cards that stores give, you know by using them your data is being tracked. 

But they are not collecting emails and text and then running them through a data mining program looking for key words to then dig further into.  What happens when those key words are "homosexual" or "gay marriage" and the government is knocking on people's doors for hate speech, you know all in the name of keeping us safe?  

[SavedByGrace1981]

34 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

This is a very different thing than the government recording, reading ,listening to your emails, text, phone calls and more.

When I buy something online as you speak of I fully accept the fact that the data is being tracked and used, that is part of the deal with you choose to buy online.   It is no different than all the "discount" cards that stores give, you know by using them your data is being tracked. 

But they are not collecting emails and text and then running them through a data mining program looking for key words to then dig further into.  What happens when those key words are "homosexual" or "gay marriage" and the government is knocking on people's doors for hate speech, you know all in the name of keeping us safe?  

All I'm saying is the data is out there.  The gov't IS going to track it - whether or not we give it 'permission'. (J Edgar was tracking MLK 'illegally' all the way back in the '50s with the technology available then.  Many people - if they even knew about it - probably didn't like him doing it.  But it didn't stop him)

So as much as you or I might quibble about whether or not the gov't SHOULD be doing it, the fact is they WILL do it.

I want to focus on the warrentless aspect.  The 4th Amendment reads thus:

 "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So in your example, let's say for your scenario to play out, it is 1) an executive branch that is hostile to Evangelical Christians initially doing the search looking for so-called 'hate speech'.  It then has to go before a judge.  Yes, the hostile executive branch gathered the data, but what was its 'probable cause'?  There was none, unless the judge also considers being an 'evangelical Christian' to be committing a crime.  So by all rights he should reject the request for a warrant.  That is our safeguard.

If or when the day comes when that is breached, then I suggest to you that we have bigger issues at stake.

[Running Gator]

9 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

All I'm saying is the data is out there.  The gov't IS going to track it - whether or not we give it 'permission'. (J Edgar was tracking MLK 'illegally' all the way back in the '50s with the technology available then.  Many people - if they even knew about it - probably didn't like him doing it.  But it didn't stop him)

So as much as you or I might quibble about whether or not the gov't SHOULD be doing it, the fact is they WILL do it.

I want to focus on the warrentless aspect.  The 4th Amendment reads thus:

 "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So in your example, let's say for your scenario to play out, it is 1) an executive branch that is hostile to Evangelical Christians initially doing the search looking for so-called 'hate speech'.  It then has to go before a judge.  Yes, the hostile executive branch gathered the data, but what was its 'probable cause'?  There was none, unless the judge also considers being an 'evangelical Christian' to be committing a crime.  So by all rights he should reject the request for a warrant.  That is our safeguard.

If or when the day comes when that is breached, then I suggest to you that we have bigger issues at stake.

The  Intelligence Authorization Act 2015 gave the spy agencies authorization to not need warrants, so it does not have to go before a judge to be used, as its collection followed the law.   Oh, and it also changed the wording to "to or from a US person", so they are not limited to just those originating outside the US, not that they followed that rule anyhow.