The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on March 06, 2017, 10:25:00 AM
-
Star Member MineralMan (91,518 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028754753
How Intelligence Monitoring Works
So, if the government is interested in communications between two points, and one of those points is controlled by a U.S. citizen, it's very difficult to monitor the devices owned by that citizen legally. However, it's not so difficult to get a warrant to monitor the other end, if that device is not owned by a U.S. citizen.
So, if you want to see if the U.S. citizen is communicating with a non-citizen, you tap the phone or intercept the IP address owned by the non-citizen. That way, you are not violating the privacy rights of the US citizen. If that US citizen is communicating with the non-citizen's device that is a voluntary choice. You are monitoring the non-citizen connection, not the US connection.
So, for example, if there is a computer in some place in the US, say at Trump Tower, exchanging financial transactions, say at a bank in Cyprus, you don't monitor the IP address of the US-based computer. Instead, you monitor the IP address of the computer in Cyprus. If, by chance, you see illegal transactions from a US-based computer, that's OK, and that information is usable.
That's how this whole FISA thing works. You get a warrant to monitor communications to and from the computer or phone on the other end of the conversation, the end not owned by a U.S. citizen or not in this country. If someone here is doing something illegal with someone there, you might see that. But you aren't seeing any other communications from the US citizen. You're just seeing the ones with the monitored device.
That's how that works.
yeah... that's not how that works, DUmbass.
Just like the IRS didn't harass and investigate [R]s
Just like the justice Department didn't harass and investigate [R]s
Just like the FBI didn't harass and investigate [R]s
::)
Star Member Zoonart (565 posts)
1. Thanks MM
I was at an opening yesterday afternoon and there were a lot of like minded folks discussing the FISA issue and many of them did not know how this works. I am going to send this post around if it's okay by you.
:thatsright:
-
14 different shades of wrong.
-
This is why we call him rock head.
-
14 different shades of wrong.
If you listed a few, I would not object - not a challenge, just want to learn.
-
If you listed a few, I would not object - not a challenge, just want to learn.
Everyone's communications, over cell or electronic networks, are recorded all the time. To actually look at that archive, the FISA warrant is necessary, but is ridiculously easy to obtain. It is granted in a nonpublic manner based on 'Probable cause' (Theoretically) but as with any other warrant all the affidavit really has say is that the origin of that probable cause is 'Knowledge and reasonable belief of the affiant, a confidential informer believed to be credible,' with nobody but the FISA judge and the intelligence agency even aware that it has been requested, and the background origin of the affidavit allegations being almost certainly highly classified and undisclosable. The FISA warrant enables the agency to retrieve all the archived communications of the subject, as well as institute active current surveillance of the target, all his or her contacts, and the construction of a 'Contact network' to analyze the pattern of communications and then further tap (Or retrieve) any communications they missed on the first shot, all under the umbrella of the FISA warrant on one target. The DUmmie's comments about 'Hard to get' are only true of the pre-FISA (And pre-universally-archived electronic communications) law under Federal criminal investigation wiretap law, which is used only in completely domestic criminal case development with no foreign intelligence component whatsoever, and is also harder because that warrant has to be obtained from an ordinary sitting judge or magistrate who is not a completely co-opted cog in the intelligence machine, and which is not classified when produced later to explain how the government got all those goodies.
That's just for starters.
-
Everyone's communications, over cell or electronic networks, are recorded all the time. To actually look at that archive, the FISA warrant is necessary, but is ridiculously easy to obtain. It is granted in a nonpublic manner based on 'Probable cause' (Theoretically) but as with any other warrant all the affidavit really has say is that the origin of that probable cause is 'Knowledge and reasonable belief of the affiant, a confidential informer believed to be credible,' with nobody but the FISA judge and the intelligence agency even aware that it has been requested, and the background origin of the affidavit allegations being almost certainly highly classified and undisclosable. The FISA warrant enables the agency to retrieve all the archived communications of the subject, as well as institute active current surveillance of the target, all his or her contacts, and the construction of a 'Contact network' to analyze the pattern of communications and then further tap (Or retrieve) any communications they missed on the first shot, all under the umbrella of the FISA warrant on one target. The DUmmie's comments about 'Hard to get' are only true of the pre-FISA (And pre-universally-archived electronic communications) law under Federal criminal investigation wiretap law, which is used only in completely domestic criminal case development with no foreign intelligence component whatsoever, and is also harder because that warrant has to be obtained from an ordinary sitting judge or magistrate who is not a completely co-opted cog in the intelligence machine, and which is not classified when produced later to explain how the government got all those goodies.
That's just for starters.
DAT, I count only three or four "shades of wrong" in the above statement . . . :whistling: :tongue:
ETA: I was responsible for your 1500th H5. Just a point of information . . .
-
Dummy of low intelligence expalains intelligence gathering. If only MM had gathered some intelligence over its life.
-
DAT, I count only three or four "shades of wrong" in the above statement . . . :whistling: :tongue:
ETA: I was responsible for your 1500th H5. Just a point of information . . .
You must be assuming they actually follow those laws all the time even when nobody's looking (Which, of course, nobody can), especially in getting that probable cause affidavit assembled.
:wink:
-
You must be assuming they actually follow those laws all the time even when nobody's looking (Which, of course, nobody can), especially in getting that probable cause affidavit assembled.
:wink:
I heard today that the standard for 'probable cause' in a FISA warrant/court is much lower than in a normal criminal court.
-
I heard today that the standard for 'probable cause' in a FISA warrant/court is much lower than in a normal criminal court.
I wouldn't dispute that, but it's all done in a black box so nobody really knows what the FISA judges accept, other than it seems to be pretty close to 'Any old thing you flop down in front of me' since in the time they've been in business they've apparently turned down only a tiny number have been denied. Of course just like real criminal search and seizure warrants done in the public courts, the agency that wanted it can just go back and rewrite it to include more goodies and get it passed then. I do have to say that what passes as probable cause in the normal criminal warrant process does vary pretty widely from judge to judge, and not a huge number of them get turned down either.
-
I wouldn't dispute that, but it's all done in a black box so nobody really knows what the FISA judges accept, other than it seems to be pretty close to 'Any old thing you flop down in front of me' since in the time they've been in business they've apparently [/b]turned down only a tiny number[/b] have been denied. Of course just like real criminal search and seizure warrants done in the public courts, the agency that wanted it can just go back and rewrite it to include more goodies and get it passed then. I do have to say that what passes as probable cause in the normal criminal warrant process does vary pretty widely from judge to judge, and not a huge number of them get turned down either.
Eric Bolling said tonight on The Five that, of 33,600 that have been applied for (I thought that the number was closer to 35,000), only eleven have been denied.
-
Eric Bolling said tonight on The Five that, of 33,600 that have been applied for (I thought that the number was closer to 35,000), only eleven have been denied.
I'd heard a similar number, of course the advocates of the wonderfulness and necessity of the pervasive spying would say that's because the agencies do such a careful and proper job in preparing their affidavits and requests (Cough).
35,000 equates to about five hundred to a thousand warrants per every domestic terrorist arrest and conviction relying on the surveillance results over the period they've been using them, or to be more charitable several hundred for every foreign target they have been instrumental in identifying and/or taking out. Imagine how it would go over if it came out that it took that many search/seizure/surveillance warrants to nail each ordinary domestic felony offender.
-
There's certainly a lack of oversight and accountability. That's what happens when we trade freedom for security. Anyone looked at Vault 7 yet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk