I have dumped all of my friends that say " but it makes us safe".
The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has admitted that for years it kept a secret log of phone calls made by American citizens calling overseas. Much like the secret NSA and FBI databases, the DEA got its information under subpoena from American telecommunications companies, irrespective of whether or not the target …
"how many of them went to jail.....the lying bastards in the DEA." I see you skim-read right past the bit about subpoenas, as in legal warrants signed by a court? If they had a subpoena then the DEA agents involved will not be going to court.
The whole point is anything that contradicts the constitution is supposed to be invalid.
2. (Ratified - don't count otherwise even if they sign it at the time) Treaties
3. Anything else
Anything from 3 is not supposed to be able to override 1 or 2. Only way to override 1 is to change it via an amendment.
It is a good system problem is in practice it seems to be ignored.
If this is incorrect then please amend.
Subpoena != warrant and don't even necessarily have to be issued by a court, just a government body. The National Security Letters which were issued (and arguably abused) by the FBI to force people to cooperate and keep silent about it were subpoenas issued by the FBI without going through the courts. There's nothing here suggesting the subpoenas were issued by courts as opposed to the DEA itself
"Subpoena != warrant and don't even necessarily have to be issued by a court, just a government body....." You are referring to administrative subpoenas which are tightly controlled. The DEA is allowed to use them for investigating commercial drug manufacturers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena), not for general investigations into drug smuggling and not for wiretaps, so I suspect you will find this was not an administrative subpoena.
".....The National Security Letters which were issued (and arguably abused) by the FBI...." The article refers to the DEA, not the FBI. Do please try and stay on topic.
The agency is no longer collecting bulk telephony metadata from US service providers.
"The", thy, the implicit 1. Reads with that substitution...
One agency is no longer collecting bulk telephony metadata from US service providers.
I suspect the last quote may have been stripped too
It has not been active nor searchable since September 2013, and all of the information has been deleted... from our servers.
Suspect there's likely a 'backup' elsewhere, even if only to allow comparison against the NSA's database.
Sure thing federales "Say hallo to my little friend!"
It's a sad state of affairs when my mom actually reversed her stance on "if you have nothing to to hide...etc" and apologized for suggesting I might be a tinfoiler. I'm sure the recent events in the old world, and the idiots in office (CAN/US incl) are not going to help one bit.
One way the DEA could might eventually triumph is by Enforcing drugs on the US population. By scaling back the insurance power-houses, replacing free syringes for cocaine-addicts with free cholesterol and blood-pressure medications for the rest of us. Duh
The DEA is basically saying they are at fault on privacy concerns - like an atheist confessing to the Pope. How about the metric tons of pure cocaine by subs, and soon jets and spaceships?
" How about the metric tons of pure cocaine by subs, and soon jets and spaceships?"
Legalising the stuff would pretty much destroy all that trade. The reason narco-gangs ship drugs and kill people is that there are insane levels of profit to be made. The gang wars were never about drugs, it was always money.
Who, particularly DB managers, actually believe this statement?
It's been my experience that database managers are the biggest Magpies around ... less heartbreaking to buy a bigger, better, hard drive than to delete treasured, aged, junk.
And the US Government must be one of the worst offenders.
I live in Baton Rouge, on I-10 - the main (and only interstate) that runs directly from Texas (and thus the Mexican border) to the Eastern coast of the US. The local newspaper regularly reports drivers on the interstate stopped for minor offenses like changing lanes without indicating and the police finding large amounts of drugs in their vehicle after "becoming suspicious" and searching the vehicles.
It happens so often, and the discoveries are so fortuitous, that the only rational explanation is that someone, somewhere, is telling the local police to be on the lookout for specific people and vehicles - or cell-phones, traveling through Baton Rouge.
Snowden exposed that but people didn't seem to understand what it meant. It means there is no right to free travel, to privacy, and no right to due process.
The "parallel" investigation created to use in the legal system in such cases can result in even the arresting officer not being aware that he is part of a shadow system that answers to no one other than itself.
And even though no one can challenge the data released by Snowden, or the confessions of groups like the NSA, DEA, and others, there are still people saying those suggesting the government would act as we know they do, create evidence based on secret saved surveillance data, lie and have others lie to courts and congress, are just tin foil hatters.
I guess that shows the seriously deluded are still thinking there are no conspiracies, even after the largest of conspiracies involving thousands and hundreds of thousands of people has been exposed. Actually those yelling ignore conspiracy theories might be on to something, or rather on something.
As opposed to that minor back road, I-20? As far as your explanation being the only explanation, not really. Yes, I am sure that local and state police forces get tips from the feds, but I doubt every drug bust flows down from information gathered outside their respective departments (legal or otherwise).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022