NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon users: Why?

[nitroz]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

I suspect left-wingers may be less outraged because they have less to hide. Just a guess...

That. It's common knowledge that this happens.
Same with emails and social media.

You have seen that we can't do anything about it because there was a bi-partisan effort in congress to pass it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 40 some odd page Rosen Search Warrant in PDF format is found here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.pdf

The TEXT version is found here (and it is easier to copy and paste portions using this version):

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.txt

The part I find quite troubling is that the FBI Agent who signed the application had engaged in conversations with the AG's Office and it is thus indisputable that the AG was fully familiar with the lawful restrictions they had to seek to "get around" in order to apply for a subpoena.

8. Based on my training and experience, and discussions with the United States
Attorney's Omce, I have learned that the Privacy Protection Act (the codified at 42
U.S.C. 2000aa _e1_sgq., defines when a search warrant impacting media-related work product
and documentary materials may be executed. Section 2000aa(a) of the PPA states, in pertinent
part:

Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize any work product materials'? possessed by a person reasonably

* * * *
Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 5 of 36

believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or
other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce; but this provision shall not impair or afl'ect the ability of any government
officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such
materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person" possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal ofiense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of
the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials
or the infonnation contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the ofiense consists
of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to
the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other

enumerated statutes])

Other documents
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government oflicer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials,' possessed

(1) in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public, are prepared, produced,
authored, or created, whether by the person in possession of the materials or by any other
person;

(2) are possessed for the purposes of communicating such materials to the public; and

(3) include mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of the person who prepared,
produced, authored or created such material.

42 U.S.C.
Section 2000aa-7(a) defines the terms "documentary materials" as follows:

"Documentary materials" as used in this chapter, means materials upon which information is
recorded, and includes, but is not limited to, written or printed materials, photographs, motion
picture films, negatives, video tapes, audio tapes, and other mechanically, magnetically or
electronically recorded cards, tapes, or discs, but does not include contraband or fiuits of a
crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or

5

Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 6 of 36

by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book,
broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or afiecting interstate or
foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any
government oficer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or
seize such materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the
receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or
the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of
the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the
national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other
enumerated statutes])

42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a) (emphasis added). Thus, section 2000aa(a) specifically exempts from its
prohibitions cases in which there is probable cause to believe that the possessor of media related
work product or documentary materials has committed a violation of section 793. * * * *

So, the Government HAD to claim that Rosen was possibly a criminal or co-conpirator in order to try to do their little end run.

And now the AG "regrets" that he had to make that claim?

It was either a true statement or it wasn't. Having the FBI (an agency under his official domain) make that claim to a court when it wasn't true, and Holder KNEW it wasn't true, is unconscionable.

At a very base line MINIMUM, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government cannot properly lie to the Judges or magistrates in the Judicial Branch or sit by silently and permit those under his official domain do so.

Holder has to be removed from office.

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to suspect that a journalist who received and published classified information may have been illegally involved in the acquisition of that classified information?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The 40 some odd page Rosen Search Warrant in PDF format is found here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.pdf

The TEXT version is found here (and it is easier to copy and paste portions using this version):

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.txt

The part I find quite troubling is that the FBI Agent who signed the application had engaged in conversations with the AG's Office and it is thus indisputable that the AG was fully familiar with the lawful restrictions they had to seek to "get around" in order to apply for a subpoena.

8. Based on my training and experience, and discussions with the United States
Attorney's Omce, I have learned that the Privacy Protection Act (the codified at 42
U.S.C. 2000aa _e1_sgq., defines when a search warrant impacting media-related work product
and documentary materials may be executed. Section 2000aa(a) of the PPA states, in pertinent
part:

Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize any work product materials'? possessed by a person reasonably

* * * *
Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 5 of 36

believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or
other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce; but this provision shall not impair or afl'ect the ability of any government
officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such
materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person" possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal ofiense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of
the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials
or the infonnation contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the ofiense consists
of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to
the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other

enumerated statutes])

Other documents
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government oflicer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials,' possessed

(1) in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public, are prepared, produced,
authored, or created, whether by the person in possession of the materials or by any other
person;

(2) are possessed for the purposes of communicating such materials to the public; and

(3) include mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of the person who prepared,
produced, authored or created such material.

42 U.S.C.
Section 2000aa-7(a) defines the terms "documentary materials" as follows:

"Documentary materials" as used in this chapter, means materials upon which information is
recorded, and includes, but is not limited to, written or printed materials, photographs, motion
picture films, negatives, video tapes, audio tapes, and other mechanically, magnetically or
electronically recorded cards, tapes, or discs, but does not include contraband or fiuits of a
crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or

5

Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 6 of 36

by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book,
broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or afiecting interstate or
foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any
government oficer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or
seize such materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the
receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or
the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of
the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the
national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other
enumerated statutes])

42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a) (emphasis added). Thus, section 2000aa(a) specifically exempts from its
prohibitions cases in which there is probable cause to believe that the possessor of media related
work product or documentary materials has committed a violation of section 793. * * * *

So, the Government HAD to claim that Rosen was possibly a criminal or co-conpirator in order to try to do their little end run.

And now the AG "regrets" that he had to make that claim?

It was either a true statement or it wasn't. Having the FBI (an agency under his official domain) make that claim to a court when it wasn't true, and Holder KNEW it wasn't true, is unconscionable.

At a very base line MINIMUM, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government cannot properly lie to the Judges or magistrates in the Judicial Branch or sit by silently and permit those under his official domain do so.

Holder has to be removed from office.

holder is currently working on the terms

of his surrendering of his office

 

[Seawytch]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

It's a continuation of a Bush administration policy. The fun part will be going back to those years and seeing what the usual suspects on the Right were saying about it.

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

 

[The Rabbi]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

It's a continuation of a Bush administration policy. The fun part will be going back to those years and seeing what the usual suspects on the Right were saying about it.

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

Bush's administration never went to the lengths that Obama's has done. Your playing the race card is shameful. Of course your military service was shameful too.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 40 some odd page Rosen Search Warrant in PDF format is found here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.pdf

The TEXT version is found here (and it is easier to copy and paste portions using this version):

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.txt

The part I find quite troubling is that the FBI Agent who signed the application had engaged in conversations with the AG's Office and it is thus indisputable that the AG was fully familiar with the lawful restrictions they had to seek to "get around" in order to apply for a subpoena.

8. Based on my training and experience, and discussions with the United States
Attorney's Omce, I have learned that the Privacy Protection Act (the codified at 42
U.S.C. 2000aa _e1_sgq., defines when a search warrant impacting media-related work product
and documentary materials may be executed. Section 2000aa(a) of the PPA states, in pertinent
part:

Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize any work product materials'? possessed by a person reasonably

* * * *
Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 5 of 36

believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or
other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce; but this provision shall not impair or afl'ect the ability of any government
officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such
materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person" possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal ofiense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of
the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials
or the infonnation contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the ofiense consists
of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to
the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other

enumerated statutes])

Other documents
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government oflicer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials,' possessed

(1) in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public, are prepared, produced,
authored, or created, whether by the person in possession of the materials or by any other
person;

(2) are possessed for the purposes of communicating such materials to the public; and

(3) include mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of the person who prepared,
produced, authored or created such material.

42 U.S.C.
Section 2000aa-7(a) defines the terms "documentary materials" as follows:

"Documentary materials" as used in this chapter, means materials upon which information is
recorded, and includes, but is not limited to, written or printed materials, photographs, motion
picture films, negatives, video tapes, audio tapes, and other mechanically, magnetically or
electronically recorded cards, tapes, or discs, but does not include contraband or fiuits of a
crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or

5

Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 6 of 36

by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book,
broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or afiecting interstate or
foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any
government oficer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or
seize such materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the
receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or
the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of
the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the
national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other
enumerated statutes])

42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a) (emphasis added). Thus, section 2000aa(a) specifically exempts from its
prohibitions cases in which there is probable cause to believe that the possessor of media related
work product or documentary materials has committed a violation of section 793. * * * *

So, the Government HAD to claim that Rosen was possibly a criminal or co-conpirator in order to try to do their little end run.

And now the AG "regrets" that he had to make that claim?

It was either a true statement or it wasn't. Having the FBI (an agency under his official domain) make that claim to a court when it wasn't true, and Holder KNEW it wasn't true, is unconscionable.

At a very base line MINIMUM, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government cannot properly lie to the Judges or magistrates in the Judicial Branch or sit by silently and permit those under his official domain do so.

Holder has to be removed from office.

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to suspect that a journalist who received and published classified information may have been illegally involved in the acquisition of that classified information?

Yes, exactly. The journalist is committing no crime.

 

[FA_Q2]

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon users: Why?

Exactly.

Why?

Truly it makes no sense.

Knowledge is power, information is knowledge and the government always seeks out to increase its power.

 

[FA_Q2]

My continuing support of the USA PATRIOT Act and related laws has always been predicated on the need for oversight.

But now I have to confess that the opponents have a bit more of a point (or maybe it's just that their point has been a better one) than I have previously seen.

If "oversight" is so poorly utilized that a judge signs a warrant for an over-reaching 'subpoena' for records over which the law itself does not authorize collection, then the judge's "oversight" is kind of meaningless. It makes me wonder why did the judge sign the ******* subpoena?

But let's not let the ones SEEKING such information off the hook.

On a related matter, AG Eric Holder has now noted (with feigned lament) that he could not get the subpoena on Fox News Report Rosen without "labeling" Rosen a possible co-conspirator:

As for using the term “co-conspirator” in describing Rosen’s role in a leak investigation, Holder explained that the phrasing was necessary in order to get a search warrant.

"I don't like that, because it means that me as a government official, and who has great respect for the press, is in essence saying that the reporter who is doing his or her job, and doing that very important job, is somehow branded a criminal,” he said. “And I'm just not comfortable with that. And we're going to change it."

Well, you damn stupid dishonest ************, here's a thought. If the claim wasn't true, and if you regret having to place such a label on Rosen to have a basis under the law to apply for a subpoena, then maybe you shouldn't TOLERATE or PERMIT a lie to be inserted into the ******* sworn affirmation in support of the application! If the law doesn't permit the issuance of a subpoena you want and the only way to get the subpoena is for you to lie, then DON'T apply for the subpoena.

YOUR simple expedient of 'so I had to lie' is totally unacceptable.

Holder should be removed from office immediately.

You missed the most important part of that though. He didn’t like lying but he certainly did not care enough to not file the subpoena but it is far more important that his ‘fix’ for this is not to simply follow the current law without lying but rather change the law so that he can do this anyway.

IOW, the law as it stands does not give him enough power to subpoena whoever and whenever he wants without lying so the law needs to be expanded. Wow…

 

[FA_Q2]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

It's a continuation of a Bush administration policy. The fun part will be going back to those years and seeing what the usual suspects on the Right were saying about it.

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

The ‘I have nothing to hide’ argument is the epitome of stupidity and hackery. What you see though is that those using it before are not the only ones to flip after a letter on the man in charge changes. Now we have democrats making that same statement. Those democrats that likely hated the patriot act when it was created because of Bush.

 

[AceRothstein]

I thought if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. At least that's what I was told when the Patriot Act was passed.

 

[Seawytch]

It's a continuation of a Bush administration policy. The fun part will be going back to those years and seeing what the usual suspects on the Right were saying about it.

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

Bush's administration never went to the lengths that Obama's has done. Your playing the race card is shameful. Of course your military service was shameful too.

Of course they did. The NSA under Bush was doing the same thing...they put the policies in place after all.

My military service was shameful? That's pretty pathetic even for you.

 

[Seawytch]

It's a continuation of a Bush administration policy. The fun part will be going back to those years and seeing what the usual suspects on the Right were saying about it.

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

The ‘I have nothing to hide’ argument is the epitome of stupidity and hackery. What you see though is that those using it before are not the only ones to flip after a letter on the man in charge changes. Now we have democrats making that same statement. Those democrats that likely hated the patriot act when it was created because of Bush.

Who? What liberals support this data mining?

 

[dilloduck]

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

Bush's administration never went to the lengths that Obama's has done. Your playing the race card is shameful. Of course your military service was shameful too.

Of course they did. The NSA under Bush was doing the same thing...they put the policies in place after all.

My military service was shameful? That's pretty pathetic even for you.

You might read the information that has ALREADY been posted that shows Barry has gone WAY past anything Bush did. Are you proud of Barry now for continuing all the things that you hated when Bush did them ?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

Good luck on that outrage.

 

[Seawytch]

Bush's administration never went to the lengths that Obama's has done. Your playing the race card is shameful. Of course your military service was shameful too.

Of course they did. The NSA under Bush was doing the same thing...they put the policies in place after all.

My military service was shameful? That's pretty pathetic even for you.

You might read the information that has ALREADY been posted that shows Barry has gone WAY past anything Bush did. Are you proud of Barry now for continuing all the things that you hated when Bush did them ?

Except he hasn't and this thread is certainly NOT proof of it. He used the "rules" put in place by the previous administration.

I say stop him. Go ahead, do it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not a conspiracy theory. It's really happening. The Guardian has a copy of the court order.

I'd heard this on Levin earlier and checked it out. The Guardian (left wing Brit newspaper) is reporting that the NSA is secretly collecting millions of Verizon subscribers phone records.

Its probably because the NSA uses AT&T and they are just envious that Verizon users can actually get a signal in far away remote places like for instance, the home, or the workplace.

 

[longknife]

When are you Obama b***-lickers gonna wise up and realize he cares nothing about individual rights or freedoms!!!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

I suspect left-wingers may be less outraged because they have less to hide. Just a guess...

And of course this was the same excuse that was offered 10 years ago when the R's were reading emails.....'if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have to worry." Lakhota types were outraged then and out for blood.

 

[Circe]

holder is currently working on the terms

of his surrendering of his office

Holder says not so, for what that's worth.


(6/6 Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday he has no plans to leave his job despite a stormy tenure marked most recently by a cascade of criticism about how his Justice Department handles leak probes.

The top U.S. law enforcement official told NBC News in a televised interview that there are still things he wants to accomplish before he eventually steps down.

"There's some things that I want to do, some things I want to get done that I've discussed with the president, and once I have finished that I'll sit down with him and we'll determine when it's time to make a transition to a new attorney general," Holder said.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was on a military board at the time, not this one, but I still recall quite clearly what those RWers were saying.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd has changed their tune quite a bit since the black guy got in office. I don't even want him doing it, but I tried to warn them that they would not like Bush's policies used by a Dem. they didn't listen.

The ‘I have nothing to hide’ argument is the epitome of stupidity and hackery. What you see though is that those using it before are not the only ones to flip after a letter on the man in charge changes. Now we have democrats making that same statement. Those democrats that likely hated the patriot act when it was created because of Bush.

Who? What liberals support this data mining?

So far we have 2 of 3 here that seem to be putting up the same damn argument.

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

I suspect left-wingers may be less outraged because they have less to hide. Just a guess...

Far less Charles Manson sociopaths on the left.

There are more posts here on that same line by one of those posters. Further, this is not the only patriot act thread that has been posted. There are a LOT more liberals using that argument in other threads. Essentially, most of the patriot act opposition vanished when Obama resigned the damn thing.