News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by rtpg on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @08:23PM (#5902913)
In order to query the databases, analysts have to write down an 'articulate suspicion' about the person (i.e. not just "this guy has a funny name" , but a real suspicion). If suddenly one end of the convo. is in the US, you also have to have substantial proof (beyond first-ammendment speech, but actual suspicions of conspiring).

This isn't suspicionless searches. At least the querying of the data isn't.

The biggest question here is whether having the info but not looking at it is the same as not having it for the courts. That'll make or break this program.

Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by amirmc on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @08:44PM (#5902990)
I think you missed the Q&A with Snowden.

""" Q. Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

A. NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp. """

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...

Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by SimHacker on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @11:32PM (#5903611)
Missed, or ignored on purpose? Once they've discredited the messenger by attacking him personally, they feel justified in ignoring the message. Which is why they attack him personally in the first place.
Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by glesica on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @08:46PM (#5902997)
Do you really believe that no one will ever look at it without proper authorization if it is allowed to be collected?
Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by rosser on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @09:55PM (#5903315)
Why would they? It's not like traffic cops ever run the licenses of the attractive women they pull over for stalking purposes.

Oh, wait. They totally do that. Nevermind...

Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by JanneVee on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @02:50AM (#5904063)
Well "articulate suspicion" didn't protect peace-activists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02...

Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by flyinRyan on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @07:18AM (#5904861)
Total nonsense. There is no oversight to this process by design. Why would they follow their own made up rules when it's easier not to and no one is going to know.
Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by krichman on Tuesday June 18, 2013 @11:53PM (#5903670)
The protections of an "articulate suspicion" are trivially defeated: "we received an anonymous tip that...".
Re:NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed by rtpg on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @04:55AM (#5904485)
This point was brought up in the hearing: the reasons or articulate suspicion are rarely made back to the FISA court. A congressman proposed having more oversight on this element.