NSA Sharing Collected Data With DEA For Convictions

It does not have to...if unmentioned, it is not the purview of government. The body o the constitution says what it CAN do. If not mentioned, it is not kosher.

 

Sure why not let the Government spy on us. First the terrorist, then the criminals, then people they just don't like.

Why are you so eager to live in an Orwellian police state ?

 

With the amount of laws on the books I bet you are violating at least one law every day you wake up and get out of bed. Of course it wouldn't surprise me if there was a law against staying in bed all day... Government needs you to get to work so they can take at least 30% of your earnings every year... just be a good slave.

 

Agencies have been sharing information for decades. Your Orwellian police state only exists in your head. Not sure what causes it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny how people complain no one works but just gets paid by all the Republicans. But now, the police state is forcing people to work! You guys got to make up your minds!!

 

The United States collects every single persons income and employment records, bank records, etc. Not really sure cell phone pairs is really that obvious of violating the constitution. Apparently smart people agree with me. You have a lot of folks on the PF forum agreeing with you!! That personally would terrify me, lol!

 

http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention

That is the difference between a phone, and how much income I claim... but yes... they have that too.

 

The President of the United States and the NSA Director have said that the NSA does not collect location data in the information they get from telecommunication companies. You are a conspiracy theorist remember?

 

The question is who owns the method of communication used to conspire or to commit a crime? It's an accepted fact that the government does so by monitoring its own property it's not violating the Fourth Amendment. In other words, when you talk on the telephone you are using government property (not the telephone itself but the airwaves) so the government is actually being nice when it bothers to get a warrant to wiretap. It would be perfectly legal to wiretap without a warrant under the theory that the government is monitoring how its property is being used.

 

Except that legally law authorities need probable cause and a warrant to tape people's phones and obtain Internet histories from ISP's. there is no reason that the government wouldn't be bound by the same laws.

- - - Updated - - -

And they are to be believed on face value after being caught red handed lying to the American public.

I think not. Burry your head in the sand all you want, some of us value freedom.

 

Agencies have been sharing information, true.

However they have not been then lying to cover up where they got that information from to side step fair trial laws to prevent people from finding out about the NSA spying in order to get a conviction.

 

They didn't lie to the public. Those programs were top secret and not supposed to be known by the public. You value your own isolated freedom, you have no knowledge whatsoever of the world outside your life. That's why you guys have such unrealistic thoughts. Like not even in the ballpark of reality.

 

We have yet to see a real challenge against the NSA blanket data collection reach the Supreme Court.

 

Since the government makes the laws it can do anything it wants to. The police are part of the government and can be exempted from any restrictions if the government wants to exempt them. It might upset the local yokels but there isn't too much they can do about it except throw a hissy fit.

 

I meant his comment about the Constitution being written in plain language that "anyone" can understand. And I put anyone in quotes because what they mean by anyone is based on how they understand it.

 

Every conceivable act known to man has been, is, or will be illegal somewhere in America.

 

Unrealistic? This coming from the person who either doesn't know or doesn't understand free trial law. Or the fact that for evidence to be admissible it needs to be parsed with a warrant, the source of said evidence needs to be identified and given to the defense.

You apparently can't grasp that data being drag netted by the NSA, given to the DEA, and then having the DEA falsify an investigation to cover up the source is a blatant violation of a persons right to fair trial.

You have absolutely no clue how the American legal system works.

 

The Supreme Court never goes against the party line. It will support the NSA blanket data collection process.

 

I highly doubt that actually. Based on the GPS tracking cases in the past I think they will side against it.

 

We shall see.

 

They have said no such thing. They might have said that they dont pull GPS data... but tower location data is part of the metadata records and an important tool under real warrant to find, say, a dirty bomb.

That is why they WANT the metadata... broad sweeping access to metadata. They were tapping phones before there was an internet. That isn't conspiracy theory... that is what it is.

Link please.

 

How do you know they have not been covering it up?

 

You act like metadata can't be broken up. And yes they have said they do not collect location data whether it is GPS or tower locations.

Let me go through a few of the features of this. First of all, it's metadata. These are phone records. These -- this is just like what you would get in your own phone bill. It is the number that was dialed from, the number that was dialed to, the date and the length of time. That's all we get under 215. We do not get the identity of any of the parties to this phone call. We don't get any cell site or location information as to where any of these phones were located. And, most importantly, and you're probably going to hear this about 100 times today, we don't get any content under this. We don't listen in on anybody's calls under this program at all.

JAMES COLE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/18/cnr.03.html

 

Maybe they have been. That doesn't change my point about it being illegal and a side step of fair trial law.

Keep trying its fun to watch you contort and twist to try to remain ignorant.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what they're saying now.

However...to use phone records in a court of law...there need be a warrant for said data.

Learn. It's the only way to grow.

 

Contort and twist what? You act like they don't have lawyers that understand law more than you do, lol. Like they are just doing this with secret handshakes at the pub. Trust me the law is much more complicated then just saying "fair trial law", lol. You guys are too immature to have adult conversations about this stuff. You guys would be laughed out of any conversation with people who actually understand law or these high level policy decisions. It's hilarious how you guys sit here acting like armchair experts at everything just because you can Google law terms. There are much smarter people then you and I out there. The NSA probably has some of the most intelligent lawyers in the world that understand under what circumstance they are allowed to prevent another agency from declassifying their source.

It's fun watching you guys act like you have any type of knowledge of what goes on in the real world at all. You say you are a "common sense" person. I have not seen much common sense from you at all. Just real immature hysteria that I would find at some hippie college rally.

- - - Updated - - -

Where did I say there didn't have to be a warrant? You have major reading comprehension problems.

 

http://http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-reverses-course-warrantless-wiretapping-criminal-case-admits-duty