While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.<p>The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not focused on the core issue.<p>It would be <i>nice</i> if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case.
My opinion on hn was unpopular when I spoke out against Apple during the San Bernardino affair, because the FBI seemed to have the proper DOJ signoff and I think the motivation was obvious.<p>However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks). Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions.
The problem with the press coverage of this topic is a lack of personalization. What does the government know about <i>me</i> and why is that important? I think most US citizens would be shocked to learn that most of our personal information is accessible without a warrant. (phone records / bank account / email / web history / phone location data / Car location / Purchase history / Facebook etc....). Also, how much the government can interpret from that information.
It's interesting that the article mentions then Sen. Obama's change of heart re: the FISA Amendments Act - saying he would filibuster it and then voting for it. I wonder what led to his change of heart. I haven't heard that explained.
Where exactly does Paul stand on issues of privacy like this? You'd think we is against it, but he is also okay with ISPs selling your browsing history.<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new-bill-would-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-data/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new...</a>
Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion people have no recourse against this practice.
I have a question about this whole government intrusion thing. Perhaps a lawyer can explain:<p>Suppose the government gets a warrant to wiretap some guy. He happens to get a call from his lawyer, and the government overhears that he's committed some crime.<p>Now there's an attorney/client privilege preventing you from directly producing the tape (is there?) so you can't just do that. But the fact that you've heard this means as an investigator you'll probably pursue this guy much more aggressively, and perhaps gather other evidence rather than give up.<p>How does that work?
The author of this article did a poor job of refuting Susan Hennessey's statement that reverse targeting is unlawful and not practiced. Taking an excerpt of a Hayden speech and then highlighting his statement that "communications with one end in the U.S." are the most interesting doesn't really prove this.<p>The author would have a stronger argument by sticking to the facts. Searches of U.S. persons without a warrant are directly at odds with the language in the 4th amendment of the Constitution, full stop.
Dana Priest and William Arkin's project documents a lot of the issues w/ the intelligence bureaucract.... <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/" rel="nofollow">http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/</a>
One feels that Paul doesn't quite have a full grasp of the techniques he's describing (and it sounds like he's conflating a lot of stuff that Snowden leaked), but that headline sure gets the clicks, so let's go with it. Especially since it's Greenwald, who uses Paul's jumbled mess of an explanation to burn everything down.<p>Doesn't even make sense what he's proposing:
Instead of getting a warrant to record the American, the NSA targets the foreigner? But what if they call someone else overseas? Or call people in the US? Seems like a really suboptimal way of targeting someone. And a low-level employee could unmask the caller? Sure, and that could also lead to that employee getting fired and prosecuted. I can access lots of data at work, but I would be shown the door and possibly sued if I did so.