Obama Admits The Government Monitors Your Browsing History

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: draoicht
Browser history obtained after the fact? Directly from the computer/device of the suspect? Or browser histories being remotely monitored?

The OP claims that the President admitted that our browser histories are being monitored. He didn't really say that.

As much as it surprises me..a majority of information is voluntarily given to the Feds by the end user, these methods are Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and other social media sites that are stored in the library of Congress and sold to the feds by those companies.

a reply to: Phage

The internet service provider is required to retain the information.

As a licence condition.

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You are conducting an ad hominem attack.

Simply factual...

No i am not, really in this thread i have said two things

Firstly yes i agree that potentially anyone internet activity can be monitored by western governments but that I do not think that this interview constitutes Obama admitting to this

Secondly that it pisses me off when people make claims like "I was a ex-CIA SAD Operative with massive high level security clearance blah blah blah..... so believe me when i say x y and z".

nothing wrong with either of those points.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So the truth is not in question but you dislike the source.

Fine.

My 2 cents,

Personally the issue with ATS is the lack of research by those who frequent the site. The majority of information is available from government sites as annual studies and quarterly reports as well as independent studies and searching in federal laws and executive orders. The answers you seek are there you just need to find them and stop relying on corrupt news sites and unreliable 3rd party studies.

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Phage

The internet service provider is required to retain the information.

As a licence condition.

I don't think so.

The Data Retention Directive becomes invalid ab initio, that is from the time it became effective in 2006, since the ECJ did not specify otherwise. The EU Members that have transposed the Directive into their national legal systems are required to take steps to ensure compliance with the judgment.

www.loc.gov...

I'm having internet issues so it's not possible for me to research this.

The people are still in Jail and the evidence was given...

a reply to: draoicht
Perhaps because their own computers provided the evidence. Or because they were convicted on other evidence.

The law was voided in 2014.

Cases I'm thinking of are before 2014.

Thanks for the link. No intention to mislead anyone.

They were surely guilty anyway.

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
wonder if this was bushs' monster, the DHS ?

lol....

Obama is president and these are Obama's actions....so blame Bush. Do you even consider that you've been brainwashed?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Nope...it was the Democratic voter's monster...Obama.

Meh...the Patriot Act was the kickstart along with the formation of DHS. O just added in a dash of NDAA. Get it right.

Sorry for not getting back into the thread, several people are making some very good points, and please continue. I got hit with a personal emergency situation that I am working on and will be back as soon as possible.

a reply to: LamontCranston

Some days, are you ever tempted to do certain things just to tick them off?

In all seriousness, during late night calls with my brother, we'd start rattling off lists of key words, deliberately, because if we didn't, and then talked about some topics (Bigfoot, UFOs, and other "fringe" stuff - nothing political), the calls would be interrupted and dropped, on a regular basis. When we did that, at the start, they never dropped. Curious, eh?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yeah, curious.
It would seem that if you were being monitored they would want to continue to do so, not to break your connection. If you're not talking, they can't listen to what you're saying.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: draoicht
Perhaps because their own computers provided the evidence. Or because they were convicted on other evidence.

The law was voided in 2014.

"The Committee believes that the U.S. Government as a whole, and in particular the Intelligence Community, must improve its ef-forts to understand the full scope of terrorist groups’ messaging
campaigns and communications methods online. These efforts should not be confined solely to intelligence analysts; operational
personnel, including intelligence and defense officials, must be aware of how terrorist groups make use of open source messaging.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Director of National Intelligence and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to jointly brief the congressional intelligence committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act on a plan for improving the use of open source information throughout the Intelligence Community
and the Department of Defense (DoD), including the U.S. Special Operations Command. The plan should include: (1) ways to expand research and development in the use of publicly available informa-
tion in relevant Intelligence Community and DoD elements, including any commercially available tools and solutions; (2) a strategy for how the Intelligence Community and the DoD can more effectively work with private industry and non-governmental organizations to gather, store, and analyze publicly available information; and (3) a description of training and guidance available to Intelligence Community and DoD personnel, including non-analytic personnel, with respect to the use and analysis of publicly available Information."

Intel authorization act 2016

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt
That conversations was about the EU.


So, does the Intelligence Authorization act say that browser histories are being monitored, or can be? Your external quote seems to be about using publicly available information.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt
That conversations was about the EU.


So, does the Intelligence Authorization act say that browser histories are being monitored, or can be?

well I only got 15 pages into the 200+ page authorization act but it does have to conform with the rules on foreign governments collection....I know the other one was EU but I though you may like the link to the US portion.

"Intelligence Community and the DoD can more effectively work with private industry and non-governmental organizations to gather, store, and analyze publicly available information"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yeah, curious.
It would seem that if you were being monitored they would want to continue to do so, not to break your connection. If you're not talking, they can't listen to what you're saying.

That's what we thought as well. Seemed to happen quite a bit, though, and we actually started keeping track. Strong phone signal, too, every single time, and always, ALWAYS, when we brought up certain topics. A couple of times, after rattling off the terms, I actually said something to the effect of, "Hey, if you are listening in, try and not drop my call, alright? Enjoy the conversation!"

It was a weird time. Especially since we virtually never discussed politics, or anything you'd think would attract attention. This was, also, during the time, post 911, that there were aircraft flying around doing random monitoring. Quite a lot of them, in the area I was at the time, and he was in a town with several military bases. So, that someone might listen wasn't really a surprise. Just seemed odd what sorts of things would trigger the "dropped" calls. After the flyovers died down, so did the call problems.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Actually, it came up in a previous thread so I've been perusing it.

a reply to: Phage

What percent do you believe the government abides by it's own laws?